Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the National Park Service: Casa Linda National Park
(USC Thesis Other)
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the National Park Service: Casa Linda National Park
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 1
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION WITHIN THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE: CASA LINDA NATIONAL PARK
by
Sonny M. Roden
___________________________________________________________________
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
December 2014
Copyright 2014 Sonny M. Roden
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
— Sir Isaac Newton
First, I would like to acknowledge my new USC family, the Hawaii cohort of 2011. It’s
been a long and trying journey, but we made it together! From the first days in the Framing
course, to the “Road to Abilene,” the APRISE trip overseas, and finally to graduation in Los
Angeles — here’s to the hardest, but best three years of my life. Fight on!
Second, I would like to thank my amazing thematic group. Alohi, Bryan, Coreen,
Denalee, Kathy, Kolt, Mike, and dear Carey. Through the sleepless nights, fried chicken grease,
and long drives to and from the Grand Canyon, it has been truly an honor and privilege to
collaborate closely with each and every one of you. Rangers all the way!
Third, I would like to thank my committee. Dr. Yates--you are truly “the most interesting
man in the world. Stay thirsty, my friends!” Dr. Kathy Hanson — your support, humor, and
hospitality in the NPS will never be forgotten. Dr. Justin Vance — you were one of my
inspirations to even apply to USC. Thank you for believing in me. Dr. Melora Sundt — you are
truly the best teacher I have ever had in my life. Thank you for pushing all of us to do our best
and to succeed!
Fourth, I thank my long-time friends here in Hawaii and California. Thank you for letting
me crash on your couches as I pass through on the way to collect data, listening to my constant
gripes, and for putting up with my communication blackouts. I promise it’s all over!
Finally, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my proud family. I would not be here
today if weren’t for their love, support, wisdom, guidance, and some good genes! Mom, dad, bro
sis, I did it! We finally have a doctor in the Roden family.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 4
List of Figures 5
Abstract 6
Chapter 1: Introduction of the Problem 7
Chapter 2: Literature Review 16
Chapter 3: Methodology 42
Chapter 4: Findings 69
Chapter 5: Solutions 89
Chapter 6: Evaluation and Discussion 125
References 133
Appendices 161
Appendix A: Behaviors Aligned to Structural Framework 161
Appendix B: Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results for Casa Linda 171
National Park
Appendix C: Observation Protocol 186
Appendix D: Interview Protocol 189
Appendix E: Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey and from Learning and 190
Motivation Theory
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in the Workplace 40
Table 2. Employee Results on the 1998 Federal Employee Survey 51
Table 3. 2012 FEVS Scores for Casa Linda National Park and the NPS Per Category 55
Table 4. CLNP Employee Interview Duration 63
Table 5. Prioritized Assumed Causes 88
Table 6. Knowledge in a Traditional Hierarchical Organization 97
Table 7. Summary of Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the Solutions 118
Table 8. Summary of the Main and Cascading Goals of the Organization 120
Table 9. Summary of Performance Goals, Timeline, and Measurement of 121
Performance Goals for Stakeholder 1 (Leaders)
Table 10. Summary of Performance Goals, Timeline, and Measurement of 122
Performance Goals for Stakeholder 2 (Employees)
Table 11. Summary of Performance Goals, Timeline, and Measurement of 123
Performance Goals for Stakeholder 3 (National Park Service)
Table 12. Communication Behaviors Aligned to Structural Framework 161
Table 13. Self-Efficacy Behaviors Aligned to Structural Framework 164
Table 14. Accountability Behaviors Aligned to Structural Framework 166
Table 15. Leadership Behaviors Aligned to Structural Framework 169
Table 16. Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey 190
Table 17. Assumed Causes from Learning & Motivation Theory 195
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Lencioni’s five dysfunctions of a team 32
Figure 2. CLNP 2012 FEVS positive percentages for knowledge/skills items under 60% 57
Figure 3. CLNP 2012 FEVS positive percentages for motivation items under 60% 58
Figure 4. CLNP 2012 FEVS positive percentages for organization items under 60% 59
Figure 5. Model for the development of trust 104
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 6
ABSTRACT
This case study investigated reports of low employee satisfaction ratings in the 2012 Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) in Casa Linda National Park (CLNP), a pseudonym for an
existing park in the National Park Service. The purpose was to understand what stakeholders in
CLNP point to as the assumed causes of knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational
performance gaps leading to low employee satisfaction. Using the gap analysis model (Clark &
Estes, 2008), root causes of the employee performance gaps were identified and validated by
triangulating qualitative data collected via observations, document analyses, and interviews
during a site visit to CLNP. Findings revealed that employees needed: (a) more open
communication on the outcomes of park projects in terms of who, what, where, when, why, and
how final decisions were made, (b) to feel respected via more mutual trust and reciprocal
accountability, (c) more sufficient resources, and (d) to feel a greater sense of motivation and
commitment and see higher standards of honesty and integrity via access to more effective
professional and leadership development National Park Service (NPS) training. This case study
recommends research-based solutions to assist the NPS increase CLNP employee satisfaction.
This case study demonstrates how the gap analysis model can be used to identify and validate
causes of performance gaps and evaluate recommended solutions in a large federal agency.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 7
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM
When one thinks of the National Park Service (NPS), the image of a friendly park ranger
wearing the iconic ‘campaign’ hat may come to mind (Cheever, 1997). The NPS was created by
the Organic Act of 1916 by President Woodrow Wilson as a new federal bureau under the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI). The National Park System now is made up of 401 areas
comprised of more than 84 million acres in 49 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa,
Guam, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the US Virgin Islands (National Park Service [NPS], 2013b).
The 401 national parks are safeguarded by more than 20,000 NPS employees (NPS, 2013b). The
mission statement of the NPS reads:
The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and
values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this
and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits
of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this
country and the world. (NPS, 2013a)
The mission has not changed, yet the NPS deals with modern issues of increased accountability,
increasingly shrinking budgets and personnel shortages, and increased crime and narco-terrorism
threats (Welch, 2012). One major organizational issue the NPS is currently dealing with is not
necessarily new, however. This organizational issue is employee satisfaction. This case study
examines employee satisfaction in one NPS park. This NPS park is Casa Linda National Park
(CLNP), a pseudonym for an existing park in the National Park Service.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 8
Background of the Problem
In the winter of 2012, the headlines in the politics section of The Washington Post read
“Best and Worst Places to Work in the Federal Government” (Rein, 2012). According to Rein
(2012), almost 40 percent of employees among the 12 largest departments of the US Government
were unsatisfied with their jobs. One bureau specifically mentioned under the DOI was the NPS.
Repanshek (2012) noted that the NPS has consistently dropped in the rankings in terms of the
best places to work in the Federal Government. In 2010, the NPS was ranked 139th out of 292
bureaus/sub-components surveyed (Repanshek, 2011). In 2011, the NPS was 163rd. In 2012, the
NPS fell to 166th. Finally, in 2013, the NPS fell to 200th place out of 300 federal agencies
(Partnership for Public Service [PPS], 2013).
Administered by the Federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) showed that NPS employees were unsatisfied in several
categories, yet, perceptions of ineffective leadership appeared to be a recurring salient issue
(PPS, 2012; Repanshek, 2012). NPS employees had perceptions that many of their leaders: (a)
were resistant to change, (b) ignored or punished different points of view, (c) rewarded loyalty
not competence or merit, (d) were not held accountable for their actions, and (e) lacked proper
leadership training. In addition, NPS employees felt there were: (a) institutional failures in the
NPS, (b) lack of professionalism, (c) lack of cultivation of innovation from within,
(d) groupthink, (e) lack of accountability of current NPS spending and budgeting, and
(f) deteriorating conditions in the National Park system (Ansson, 1998; Malkin, 2012; Oshen,
2010; Repanshek, 2009, 2011; R. Smith, 2011). Discouraged by senior leadership and lacking
belief in true organizational change, some past and present NPS employees have published
books, articles, and gone to the press to tell their stories (Eisler, 2012; PR Newswire, 2012; R.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 9
Smith, 2011; B. Smith, 2012). According to recent FEVS results, many NPS employees still
believe in the NPS mission but low employee satisfaction and morale remain an issue (PPS,
2012).
The American public might be concerned about employee satisfaction at the NPS because
low employee satisfaction may undermine the overall quality of service and the ability of the
organization to respond to public needs (Ting, 1997). In fact, companies and organizations are
realizing the importance of employee satisfaction because the quality of services is dependent
upon the quality of the employees (Oshagbemi, 2003). Higher job satisfaction may be linked to
higher productivity and better organizational effectiveness. Better organizational effectiveness
can lead to higher quality of service (Hsieh, 2010). On the other hand, low employee satisfaction
can lead to increased absenteeism and turnover, increased grievances, decreased productivity and
engagement, and overall lower quality of service (Ellickson, 2002).
When it comes to the relationship between employee satisfaction and productivity, Judge,
Thoreson, Bono, and Patton (2001) indicated that it was one of the most studied areas in
industrial-organizational psychology. Operating with different goals and from different
assumptions, multiple researchers have examined the relationship between employee satisfaction
and productivity multiple times. Much of the literature does not actually advocate an irrefutable
link between increased individual employee satisfaction with increased individual productivity,
however, the impact of increased overall employee satisfaction in an organization as a whole has
shown to be quite substantial on increased organizational productivity and effectiveness (Judge
et al., 2001; Ostroff, 1992). Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes’ (2002) meta-analysis also suggested
that aggregate employee attitudes, such as increased morale, were linked to positive business
outcomes such as increased customer loyalty, profitability, and organizational productivity.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 10
Heskett, Sasser, and Schlesinger (1997) referred to this as the ‘service profit chain,’ in which
increased overall workforce satisfaction and commitment led to more work force production,
which in turn led to more consumer satisfaction and profits. In essence, happier workers equate
to increased outputs, which equate to happier customers (Hsieh, 2010).
Much of the research on employee satisfaction and productivity has focused on the
private sector but there have been studies done in the public sector as well. For example, Harmon
et al. (2003) found that increased employee satisfaction due to work environments conducive to
employee satisfaction in 146 US Department of Veterans Affairs Health centers had humanistic
and financial payoffs in terms of improved patient health care and lowered operational costs.
Therefore, concerns about increasing overall employee satisfaction in a public agency like the
NPS may be justified if the NPS is to effectively continue its public mission.
Statement of the Problem
This case study will focus on the concerns of the NPS leadership over low employee
satisfaction ratings via the examination of CLNP. As mentioned earlier, employee satisfaction
ratings agency-wide seem to be consistently declining rather than improving (Repanshek, 2011,
2012). According to the Learning & Development Report to the National Leadership Council
(U.S. Department of the Interior [USDOI], 2008), findings recommended that NPS leadership
“immediately and aggressively pursue and sustain leadership and development opportunities for
all employees at all levels” (p. 4). The recommendations in the Learning and Development
Report addressed three urgent issues: (a) decreasing ratings of employee satisfaction at the NPS,
(b) the “quiet crisis” of the public service in which federal agencies faced increasing difficulties
in recruiting and retaining high-quality employees (Lewis, 1991, p. 145), and (c) preparation for
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 11
the impending mass retirements of baby-boom generation federal employees in the coming years
(Thompson, 2008; Zeller, 2004).
The problem for NPS leaders is to find a way to determine the cause of low employee
satisfaction in individual NPS parks, identify collective themes, and make system-wide
recommendations for solutions. In response to the declining employee satisfaction ratings as a
whole, NPS leaders have taken steps to improve employee satisfaction in an effort to minimize
the current and future impact on the NPS mission. The intended goal of the NPS is to rank
among the top ten best federal agencies to work for by the year 2016 (NPS, 2012; Treutelaar,
2009). The NPS plans to respond by strengthening employee engagement and commitment,
improving management practices, and identifying potential future leaders. NPS leaders plan to
offer enhanced training programs that include customized assessments that focus on individual
career development, increased communication and accountability, better retention and
recruitment, identification and consolidation of best workplace practices, and the like (NPS,
2012; National Parks Second Century Commission [NPSCC], 2009; National Park Service
Office of Learning & Development [NPSOLD], 2012).
As previously mentioned, 2012 FEVS results showed that many NPS employees
reported that perceptions of ineffective leadership were one of the primary reasons behind low
employee satisfaction ratings. According to Broder (2012), the eco/conservation field is a
growing industry. As NPS employees become less satisfied due to their perceptions of
ineffective leadership, other federal agencies as well as the private industry may attract NPS
employees to work in their organizations. Buckingham and Coffman (1999) observed that when
employees leave a company, they take a great deal of that company’s value with them straight to
the competition.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 12
A mass exit of NPS employees may lead to critical gaps in recruitment and retention of
highly qualified, educated, and trained people. In addition, increased collateral duties burdened
upon shrinking park staff may put public safety at risk and may lead to increased civil liability
resulting in increased taxpayer costs (U.S. Supreme Court, 1989; Worrall, 1998). Finally, the
preservation and protection of valuable natural, cultural, and educational resources in the vast
NPS system may be threatened and, as a result, quality of public services the NPS provides may
also decline.
Purpose of the Study
According to Ting (1997), strong organizational commitment is one of several indicators
of job satisfaction for federal employees. FEVS results showed that many NPS employees
remain committed to the NPS mission, yet they still reported low employee satisfaction ratings.
Investigating the workplace and organizational environment at CLNP may shed light on
understanding assumed causes of low employee satisfaction in NPS as a whole. This case study
used initial 2012 FEVS data for CLNP and the gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008) as the
main conceptual framework to diagnose and validate assumed causes of low employee
satisfaction at CLNP. The purpose of this study will be to understand what CLNP stakeholders
point to as causes of low employee satisfaction. Findings as a result of the study will not be
meant as a critique of CLNP or of the NPS, but rather as an opportunity to identify causes and
offer potential solutions to CLNP employees and leaders in order to increase employee
satisfaction.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 13
Study Questions
The study questions guiding this investigation are:
1. What are the causes of CLNP employee knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational performance gaps that prevent 100% employee satisfaction?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
As previously mentioned, this study utilized the gap analysis model by Clark and Estes
(2008) as the main conceptual framework. This model was used to identify, triangulate, and
validate assumed causes of performance gaps in the areas of employee knowledge/skills,
motivation, and organizational issues. Once assumed causes of performance gaps were
identified, those assumed causes were triangulated and validated through a qualitative process of
a preliminary document analysis of the 2012 FEVS, researcher observations of two Employee
Viewpoint Survey (EVS) workshops held at CLNP, a document analysis of employee action
plans drafted by employees themselves at the EVS workshops, and seven individual interviews
of CLNP employees. Finally, using the actionable solutions suggested by CLNP employees at
the EVS workshops as a comparison, possible cause-driven solutions based on the literature were
proposed. In this case study, the gap analysis model was useful because it systematically
identified and isolated multiple problems in multiple areas in CLNP.
Importance of the Study
Increasing current employee satisfaction in CLNP and the NPS can be used as a means to
increase operational effectiveness and readiness. Increasing employee satisfaction may also be
used to address future potential employment issues such as recruitment, retention, turnover, etc.
In addition, research findings from this case study may provide other NPS park leaders some
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 14
direction and a starting point on how to address low employee satisfaction in their respective
parks. Finally, research findings from this case study can also be used by education and
organizational change practitioners to understand the relevance of knowledge/skills, motivation,
and organizational performance gaps in government agencies as well as to add to the limited
scholarly research on job satisfaction in the Federal Government (Ting, 1996).
Organization of the Case Study
Chapter 1 of this case study presented the introduction, the background of the problem,
the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the study questions to be answered, a
brief description of the and methodology and theoretical approach, and the importance of the
study.
Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature addressing the major variables and factors
that will be used to investigate low employee satisfaction at CLNP. This chapter is divided into
three major sections. The first section briefly defines and discusses the construct of employee
satisfaction. The second section looks at how the four evidenced-based variables of: (a)
communication, (b) self-efficacy, (c) accountability, and (d) leadership style impact employee
satisfaction. In addition, this section also looks at how employees’ needs to observe specific
workplace behaviors in each of the four variables are related to employee satisfaction. Finally,
the third section looks at additional factors that affect employee satisfaction. The chapter ends
with a conclusion.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in this study, including descriptions of the
research design — specifically the gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008) which was used as
the main conceptual framework to diagnose the assumed causes of low employee satisfaction at
CLNP. This chapter also describes the research design. Each section includes a rationale,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 15
including strengths and limitations of the design elements. The chapter goes on to describe the
procedures for data collection, document analysis, EVS workshop observation protocols, and
individual interview protocols.
Chapter 4 presents the findings pertaining to the assumed causes of the CLNP employee
knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational performance gaps which were responsible for
low employee satisfaction in CLNP. Qualitative data was obtained, corroborated, and validated
via observation of two EVS workshops held in CLNP, document analysis of CLNP employee
action plans, and seven individual CLNP employee interviews.
Chapter 5 presents research-based solutions to the validated causes of the CLNP
employee knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational performance gaps. All proposed
solutions were based on employees’ needs as discussed in Chapter Four. The solutions to address
the validated causes were presented and organizational, cascading, and necessary performance
goals were projected to start closing the CLNP employee performance gaps and begin increasing
employee satisfaction ratings by the 2014 and 2016 FEVS.
Chapter 6 concludes this case study with a proposed system of evaluation of the
recommended solutions. Strengths and weaknesses of the gap analysis model were discussed as
well as limitations of this case study. Recommendations for future research were also proposed.
Finally, implications of this case study and a summative conclusion are given.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 16
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature that addresses the major variables and
factors that will be used to investigate possible links to the assumed causes of the
knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational employee performance gaps leading to low
employee satisfaction at Casa Linda National Park (CLNP). This chapter is divided into three
major sections. The first section will briefly define and discuss the construct of employee
satisfaction. The second section will look at how the four evidenced-based variables of:
(a) communication, (b) efficacy, (c) accountability, and (d) leadership style impact employee
satisfaction. This section also looks at how employees’ needs to observe specific workplace
behaviors in each of the four variables are related to employee satisfaction. Finally, the third
section will look at additional factors that affect employee satisfaction.
Employee Satisfaction
Definition
Employee satisfaction is a multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, and complex construct. In
fact, there have been numerous studies done on employee satisfaction in the organizational
environment (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992; Hopkins, 1983). As a result, there are numerous
definitions 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: CLNP 17
According to the literature, job satisfaction and ‘happiness’ have been closely linked
together (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Brief (1998) 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).
One is required to make two assumptions when equating a happy worker with a satisfied
worker, however (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). First, employee satisfaction is specific to a
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. In other words, job satisfaction can be based on what a
person feels and thinks. Therefore, 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.
Four Variables that Influence Employee Satisfaction
According to the literature, there is much research conducted in both the private and
public sectors that asserts that four of the most salient variables when it comes to influencing
employee satisfaction are: (a) communication, (b) self-efficacy, (c) accountability, and
(d) leadership style (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca, 2003; Bolman & Deal, 2008;
Elmore, 2002; Judge & Bono, 2001; Kim, 2002, Northouse, 2010, Pincus, 2006; Thoms, Dose,
& Scott, 2002). What may be equally important is fostering organizational environments where
employees actually observe visible behaviors of each variable in their workplaces. In fact,
employees’ needs for more observable communication, self-efficacy, accountability, and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 18
effective leadership styles may be the possible causes of knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational performance gaps in many workplaces (Clark & Estes, 2008). In turn, these
performance gaps could then have detrimental effects on overall employee satisfaction. The rest
of this section will not only discuss the important roles communication, self-efficacy,
accountability, and effective leadership play in the work environment but also how observable
behaviors of each variable may ultimately influence employee satisfaction.
Need for Observable Workplace Communication Behaviors
McCroskey, Richmond, and Davis (1982) observed that, “communication is a vehicle for
dissemination of information, instruction, and affect” (p. 173). In terms of organizational
functioning, the importance of communication has been well-recognized and documented
(Barnard, 1968; Bavelas & Barrett, 1951; Rogers & Agarwala-Rogers, 1976). There is also much
research connecting communication and employee satisfaction (Pettit, Goris, & Vaught, 1997).
King, Lahiff, and Hatfield (1988) reported “a consistently clear and positive pattern of
relationships between an employee’s perceptions of communications and his or her job
satisfaction” (p. 36). In addition, Wheeless, Wheeless, and Howard (1984) reported that
communication-related variables are significantly related to increased job satisfaction. Overall,
communication clearly plays a role in a person’s job satisfaction (Pettit et al., 1997).
According to Clark and Estes (2008), withholding important information and poor
communication are common sources of knowledge problems in the work environment. It is vital
that both employees and supervisors know the importance of open communication in the
workplace. Increasing this knowledge can not only increase organizational effectiveness, but also
increase employee performance and job satisfaction for all stakeholders (Ainspan & Dell, 2000).
There are six important aspects of workplace communication between employees and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 19
supervisors. These aspects are: (a) feedback, (b) supervisory communication, (c) horizontal
communication, (d) supervisor temperament, (e) communication competence, and (f) open
exchange of information.
First, feedback is a critical part of the work environment and leads to higher productivity
and performance (Kim, 1975). Pincus (2006) defined feedback as when employees are given
information about how their performance will be judged and if their efforts are recognized.
Communication climate, personal feedback, and supervisory communication have all been cited
as strongly correlated with job satisfaction (Downs, 1977; Downs, Clampitt, & Pfeiffer, 1988).
Clampitt and Downs (1993) found that a substantial number of employees in their study reported
that feedback made them feel better about their work and themselves. Other comments from the
same study included: “Need approval…Why work if no one cares (31%). It’s important to know
how we are doing (26%). Feedback makes you want to do a better job… (21%).” Andrews and
Kacmar (2001) found that supervisor feedback was integral in service-based jobs because it led
to less role ambiguity. Through the use of performance feedback, Clampitt and Downs (1993)
reported that supervisors had the highest impact on employees’ productivity and job satisfaction.
On the other hand, employees who do not receive performance feedback generally have less job
satisfaction. Locke and Latham (1990) posited that without clear goals and feedback, employees
are not inclined to target business goals and are not committed to work with their best efforts.
Kluger and DiNisi (1998) reported that critical feedback to employees actually decreased
performance. Performance deteriorates when feedback emphasizes an employee’s negative
qualities. By using constructive feedback, supervisors can create a positive work environment
because employees will know what is expected of them and can feel free to ask their supervisors
for support and assistance (Andrews & Kacmar, 2001).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 20
Schneider and Bowen (1992) argued that when employees do not receive adequate,
useful, constructive, and consistent feedback about their job performance, there could be a
negative impact on customer interactions. Negative customer interactions could affect the overall
mission of the organization. Lack of organizational feedback can increase feelings of stress,
uncertainty, and role ambiguity in employees (Greller & Parsons, 1992; Andrews & Kacmar,
2001). When performance expectations in an organization are not made clear, lack of clarity
about what an employee should be doing increases.
Second, in conjunction with feedback, overall supervisory communication has been
found to be the strongest link to employee satisfaction (Pincus, 2006). Specifically, supervisory
communication can be described as when supervisors react to subordinates’ concerns through
problem-solving and guidance (Pincus, 2006). Miles, Patrick and King (2011), also found that
communication from supervisors is related to subordinate job satisfaction. The foundation for
effective supervisory communication is trust, proximity, and frequency. Employees perceive
trust with supervisors when interpersonal communication comes in the form of useful instruction
or helpful advice (Jo & Shim, 2005). Face-to-face communication between superior and
subordinate is also preferred over other communication methods such as publications,
newsletters, or video messages (Jo & Shim, 2005; Hargie, Tourish, & Wilson, 2002). Finally,
Johlke and Duhan (2000) added that frequent supervisor-subordinate communication was
positively correlated with job satisfaction.
Third, the importance of communication in the workplace is not only limited to
employees and supervisors. Communication among employees and peers is just as important.
Pincus (2006) described how horizontal communication is a kind of casual communication
relationship with fellow employees and can include rumors, gossip, and water cooler talk. In
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 21
addition, horizontal communication is important for the overall flow of information throughout
an organization. Horizontal communication leads to organizational openness, in which
employees are willing to openly exchange ideas based on trust and involvement between peers,
supervisors, and top management (Thomas, Zolin, & Hartman, 2009).
Fourth, supervisor temperament is another critical component of workplace
communication. Based on biological temperament, some people may be better suited for
leadership positions than others (Beatty & Valencic, 2000; Eysenck, 1952, 1956, 1978, 1998).
Porter, Wrench and Hoskinson (2007) found that placing highly extroverted people in
supervisory positions can be valuable for organizational communication. Additionally, Bates
(1989) argued that a person’s temperament affects how others interact with that person.
Specifically, individual traits in a supervisor can have positive or negative influences in an
organization (Porter et al., 2007). Smith and McCanger (2004) asserted that supervisors that
showed high levels of extraversion, emotional stability, and approachability equated to
employees’ with higher job satisfaction. Bruins and DeGilder (1999) also found that
subordinates preferred supervisors who showed concern about their well-being. Conversely,
supervisors with psychotic or antisocial tendencies led to lower employee job satisfaction. Porter
et al. (2007) observed that less extroverted supervisors with higher levels of psychoticism or
neuroticism 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).
Enthusiasm also plays an important factor in supervisor temperament. According to Dye
(2011), people will follow leaders if they are always enthusiastic about the mission or task:
“Enthusiasm is infectious, and spreads by contact” (p. 102). Even when morale is low, the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 22
communication abilities of enthusiastic leaders can often motivate others to follow them (Dye,
2011). Lack of enthusiasm in leaders can equate to a lack of enthusiasm and motivation in
employees.
Fifth, there is a significant relationship between the communication competence of
supervisors and employee satisfaction (Madlock, 2008). Communicator competence includes:
effectiveness, behavior, skill, motivation, and knowledge (Spitzberg, 1983). According to
Spitzberg and Cupach (1981), interpersonal interactions require a certain finesse of
communicating goals while maintaining conversational norms. Communication competence
requires listening and negotiating skills as well as language, gestures and voice (Cushman &
Craig, 1976; Stohl, 1984). Salacuse (2007) reported that modern supervisors need to lead by
negotiation because today’s workforce employs more educated people with higher intelligence.
Shaw (2005) added that in order for supervisors to build credibility as competent communicators,
supervisors should actively listen to other points of view, communicate clearly and concisely,
and make use of multiple channels of communication.
Finally, supervisors can increase job performance and satisfaction by providing their
employees with accurate and appropriate information (Pettit et al., 1997). Open communication
in the workplace is a two-way street, however. Higgins (1999) added that subordinates preferred
supervisors who were willing to accept their ideas and opinions as well. Employees need to have
the ability to initiate communication about personal goals and needs with receptive supervisors
(Cummings, Lewis, & Long, 1980). Supervisor receptivity involves tolerance, flexibility, and
openness to input of innovations, suggestions, opinions, and ideas offered by their employees.
Lack of supervisory receptivity can lead to decreased employee satisfaction. According to
Wheeless et al. (1984), supervisor receptivity “provides an empathetic sense of caring and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 23
concern, important factors in the human-relations approach to understanding job satisfaction”
(p. 223).
Need for Observable Workplace Self-Efficacy Behaviors
Self-efficacy refers to the level of one’s confidence at mastery of a specific task
(Bandura, 1977). Furthermore, self-efficacy is a psychological construct that deals with how
people’s beliefs in their capabilities control their actions in ways that produce desired outcomes
(Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998b). Pajares (1996) reported that a higher level of self-efficacy is a
motivating factor in increased persistence and task accomplishment. According to Judge and
Bono (2001), self-efficacy plays a critical role in organizations as it is positively related to work-
related performance and job satisfaction. Employees with higher levels of self-efficacy have
lower turnover and greater organizational commitment (Judge & Bono, 2001). Rueda (2011)
noted, “Individuals with higher self-efficacy, greater belief in their own competence, and higher
expectancies for positive outcomes will be more motivated to engage in, persist at, and work
hard at a task or activity” (p. 41). In addition, Stajkovic and Luthans (1998a) found self-efficacy
to be positively related to such areas as: simulated managerial performance, adjustment to new
organizational settings, skill acquisition, coping with career related events, career choice,
adaptability to advanced technology, learning and task related achievement, research
productivity, sales, job search, etc.
There has been much research conducted on the impact of efficacy on employee
satisfaction in various industries. Many studies found a significant relationship between efficacy
and employee satisfaction. For example in the public sector, specifically education, Caprara et
al. (2003) studied the relationship between teachers’ beliefs in their confidence to fulfill their job
requirements and how those beliefs were related to job satisfaction. Caprara et al. (2003) found
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 24
that teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs were their main determinants of job satisfaction. In a related
study, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, and Malone (2006) also found that teachers’ self-efficacy
significantly contributed to their students’ academic achievement. Caprara et al. (2006)
suggested that teachers with increased self-efficacy beliefs were more likely to create learning
environments conducive to student achievement. In addition, Klassen and Chiu (2010)
researched the effects of teacher job stress, years of experience, and gender on teachers’ self-
efficacy and job satisfaction. Klassen and Chiu (2010) found that teachers’ self-efficacy for
classroom management and instructional strategies positively influenced job satisfaction. They
also found that increased job stress lowered job satisfaction. Results also showed that teachers’
self-efficacy was related to job-related stress and years of experience, which in turn influenced
job satisfaction.
Also in the education realm, Federici and Skaalvik’s (2012) research looked at school
principals and observed how their self-efficacy was related to motivation to quit, job burnout,
and overall job satisfaction. Federici and Skaalvik (2012) found that self-efficacy in principals
was positively correlated to motivation to quit and job satisfaction. Conversely, self-efficacy was
also negatively correlated to job burnout. These studies highlight the importance of focusing
interventions to improve employee satisfaction at both the leadership and employee levels
because employee satisfaction is important at all levels of an organization.
Furthermore, Canrinus, Helms-Lorenz, Beijaard, Buitink, and Hofman (2012) argued that
studying the relationship between employees’ levels of motivation, self-efficacy, job satisfaction,
and occupational commitment was also critical. Their research included new and senior
employees and found that their ratings of job satisfaction, occupational commitment, and sense
of professional identity were influenced by the extent to which they felt competent in dealing
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 25
with their leadership, satisfaction with colleagues, and the support they received. Canrinus et al.
(2012) found that these results were consistent among new, experienced, and senior employees.
Individual temperament is also an important factor when it comes to employee
motivation and job satisfaction. Judge (1993) argued that job dissatisfaction would be more
predictive if it was considered with a person’s predisposition. Judge’s (1993) study of nurses
found that the more positive the disposition of the individual, the stronger the relationship
between job dissatisfaction and turnover. Judge (1993) also found that people dissatisfied with
their jobs but who had positive dispositions were the people most likely to quit their jobs. Judge
(2003) also found that job satisfaction and voluntary turnover were more highly related for
people with positive dispositions than for those with negative dispositions. Judge (2003)
concluded that happy people who are unhappy at work tended to resign.
In an in-depth and comprehensive study, Gardner and Pierce (1998) explored the role of
self-efficacy and self-esteem within the organizational context. They found that organizational-
based self-esteem had positive effects on employee self-esteem, behaviors, and job attitudes.
Organizational based self-esteem was also shaped by individuals’ generalized feelings of
efficacy and had a positive effect on employee performance and satisfaction. Gardner and Pierce
(1998) suggested that employees with high organization-based self-esteem tended to possess
positive work-related attitudes, realized that good performance is associated with feeling good,
and were more motivated to perform better. In a related study, Judge and Bono (2001) found that
emotional stability, locus of control, generalized self-efficacy, and self-esteem were among the
best dispositional predictors of job performance, motivation, and job satisfaction.
Much of the literature has studied the effects of individual efficacy on employee
satisfaction. Nielsen, Yarker, Randall, and Munir (2009), however, looked at the mediating
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 26
effects of team and self-efficacy. Nielson et al. (2009) found direct relationships between
team/self-efficacy and employee satisfaction. Interestingly, they found that teams with high
levels of efficacy may have minimized and over-shadowed the effects of team members with low
self-efficacy. This occurred because team members with low self-efficacy experienced high
levels of job satisfaction due to the perception of competency and assurance from team members
with high self-efficacy. In essence, confidence in peers leads to higher overall satisfaction.
In a related study, Zellars, Hochwarter, Perrewe, Miles and Kiewitz (2001) also looked
beyond individual self-efficacy by investigating the interactive effects of role conflict and
perceived collective efficacy. Zellars et al. (2001) found that perceived collective self-efficacy
in groups of employees positively predicted job satisfaction but negatively predicted job burnout.
This was a note-worthy study if supervisors and leaders want to understand how to motivate
groups of subordinates and not just individuals.
Clearly, the literature indicates that efficacy (whether individual or collective) directly
impacts employee satisfaction. In order to maximize human capital and increase organizational
effectiveness, company leaders interested in improving employee satisfaction levels could
benefit by focusing interventions that motivated and improved employee self-efficacy.
Need for Observable Workplace Accountability Behaviors
Employee accountability is described as employees’ perceptions pertaining to the degree
they may be required to justify their actions at work to one person or people in positions of
authority (Tetlock, 1985; Wood & Winston, 2005, as cited by Breaux, Perrewe, Hall, Frink, &
Hochwarter, 2008). Breaux et al. (2008) defined accountability as “employees’ perceived
answerability for behaviors and decisions at work, with the assumption that reactions to external
pressure for justification will affect reward allocation and discipline” (p. 111).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 27
Spanning organizations from government agencies to private industries, accountability
seems to be the popular buzzword of the day. In these times of shrinking budgets, customers
expect better products and more efficient services, employers expect better productivity from
their employees, and employees expect better work environments conducive to meeting company
goals. Frink and Klimoski (1998) commented that accountability is “the most fundamental factor
in organizing and organizations” (as cited in Thoms et al., 2002).
Goldberg and Morrison (2003) described different types of accountability. Four types of
accountability are pertinent to this section: (a) bureaucratic, (b) professional, (c) reciprocal, and
(d) positive.
First, bureaucratic accountability is described as a contractual relationship between the
providers of a good or service, and an authority figure who can punish or replace the providers
(Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Goldberg and Morrison (2003) defined bureaucratic
accountability as an organizational construct that “revere(s) compliance and defines success by
the degree to which the system functions smoothly and efficiently” (p. 64), resulting in measures
of success gauged by the outcomes. In essence, bureaucratic accountability encompasses the
ways in which managers hold employees responsible for performance outcomes.
In bureaucratic accountability, since compliance is used for enforcement, collaboration is
few and far between among employees and supervisors/leaders. Bolton (2003) posited that a
“collaborative process is essential so that the resulting measures are ‘owned’ by those subjected
to them” (p. 24). Therefore, lack of collaboration, lack of communication, and lack of feedback
are the main drawbacks of bureaucratic accountability. On the other hand, however, Fandt (1991)
found that employees who were held accountable for their performances tended to be more
attentive to the needs of others, were higher performers, and developed greater accuracy than
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 28
employees who were not held bureaucratically accountable (as cited in Thoms et al., 2002).
Ciotta (2011) suggested that bureaucratic accountability might be more effective if supervisors
were perceived more as coaches or mentors.
Second, professional accountability is the “body of professional knowledge, and a set of
rules…regarding how professionals treat each other and their clients” (Goldberg & Morrison,
2003, p. 66). Burke (2004) suggested that professional accountability deals with employees
holding other employees responsible for professional conduct. In this model, employers or
supervisors are not involved for the conduct of employees. Instead, employees and peers are held
responsible for each other typically through professional codes of conduct, professional boards,
or professional learning communities that encourage employees to share best practices.
One of professional accountability’s strengths is that employees are intrinsically
motivated to develop work skills by learning from peers and sharing what works with others. On
the contrary, a weakness of professional accountability is that employees may not feel
appropriate to correct and address unprofessional or unethical behaviors of their peers from a
positional or authority perspective.
Third, reciprocal accountability can be described as a two-way process where for every
demand put on an employee to perform, the employer must provide the capacity so that the
employee can meet that demand (Elmore, 2002). Furthermore, employees have a reciprocal
responsibility to demonstrate some increase in performance for every investment employers
make in enhancing their employees’ skills and knowledge. Elmore (2002) commented, “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).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 29
Finally, positive accountability describes a collaborative, innovative, and communicative
style of accountability (Zeglinski, 2011). The parameters of positive accountability can be traced
to Yang and Kassekert (2009) where they found there was either a positive or negative effect on
employee satisfaction and productivity depending on the type of leadership, communication
style, the closeness of relationships between supervisor and employee, the relationship of
employees with other employees, and the corresponding type of appraisal system. Bolton (2003)
and Yang and Kassekert (2009) described a recent accountability paradigm known as Managing
For Results (MFR) that was growing in popularity. MFR includes quality improvement,
innovation, strategic planning, and a customer-service orientation in conjunction with the
utilization of performance measurement systems and orientations. Yang and Kassekert (2009)
suggested employee satisfaction and productivity might increase if an MFR-like accountability
system was combined with a collaborative leadership style characterized with clear goals and
expectations, closeness with supervisor and co-workers, open communication and feedback, and
a culture of trust (Lencioni, 2002).
Leadership Defined
Northouse (2010) defined leadership as, “a process whereby an individual influences a
group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 3). Leadership is a process that can be
learned and is available to everyone. Furthermore, the dynamics of leadership is a moral,
transactional, and interactive event that occurs between the leader and the followers. There are
three central components to leadership: (a) leadership involves influence, (b) leadership occurs in
groups, and (c) leadership includes attention to common goals. Leadership does not exist without
influence. Influence is concerned with how the leader affects followers. Without influence,
followers do not follow leaders.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 30
Leadership takes place within the context of groups. Leadership is influencing a group of
people who share a common purpose. This can be a large group in entire organization, a
community group, or a small task group or team. Leadership boils down to one person
influencing a group of other persons to accomplish the same goals. Leadership cannot occur
without others or a group.
Leaders focus their energy toward others who are trying to commonly achieve something
together. Leaders and followers possess a mutual purpose. Northouse (2010) observed that:
Attention to common goals gives leadership an ethical overtone because it stresses the
need for leaders to work with followers to achieve selected goals. Stressing mutuality
lessens the possibility that leaders might act toward followers in ways that are forced or
unethical. (p. 3)
Rost (1991) added that stressing mutuality increases the chances that leaders and followers can
work together harmoniously toward a common good.
In addition, leaders have an ethical responsibility to look out for the concerns and needs
of followers. It is important for leaders to treat followers and their ideas with dignity and respect.
Leaders play a major role in their organizations to establish a proper ethical climate. Leaders
should be especially sensitive to the ideals and values they promote. According to Northouse
(2010), sound ethical leadership is based on five principles: (a) community, (b) honesty,
(c) justice, (d) service, and (e) respect. Community involves looking for goals that are
compatible with their followers’ goals and with society as a whole. Ethical leaders are honest and
do not lie. Ethical leaders do not distort the truth to others in ways that are counterproductive or
destructive. Judicious leaders use fairness in their decision-making. They are fair to the
individual, while at the same time, fair in the best interests of the community. Ethical leaders are
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 31
altruistic. They serve others by placing others’ welfare in front of their own in order to advance
the common good. Finally, ethical leaders treat others with respect. Ethical leaders are tolerant of
opposing points of view and listen to others closely.
Need for Observable Workplace Effective Leadership Behaviors
If leadership is a process, then being ethical is one step closer to being an effective leader.
Bolman and Deal (2008) reported that effective leaders create focus and direction, set standards
for performance, and possess the ability to help articulate and communicate a vision. Effective
leaders think long-term, are open to new ideas, and think outside of the box (Barker, 1993). The
best leaders have the communication and political skills to cope with the demands of multiple
constituencies. Effective leaders are also committed and passionate about their work and the
people who do it (Clifford & Cavanaugh, 1985; Collins, 2001; Peters & Austin, 1985; Vaill,
1982). In addition, effective leaders work harder and are smarter than other people (O’Reilly &
Chatman, 1994). Finally, effective leaders are risk-takers, flexible, self-confidence, possess good
interpersonal communication skills, are honest and humble, manage by walking around, task-
competent, intelligent, decisive, and understanding of followers (Bass, 1990; Collins, 2001;
Gardner, 1987; Hollander, 1978; Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Yukl, 2005).
Effective leaders also build relationships and inspire trust (Bennis & Nanus, 2007; Kotter,
1996; Maccoby, 1981). In Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team (see Figure 1), he outlines
that absence of trust is the very first dysfunction upon which all subsequent ‘functionalities’ are
dependent.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 32
Figure 1. Lencioni’s five dysfunctions of a team
Note. Adapted from Lencioni (2002).
Effective leaders can help build a foundation of trust for their employees when working
in teams. When there is an absence of trust, there is an unwillingness to be vulnerable, open, and
to admit mistakes and weaknesses. Trust is at the heart of all cohesive and functioning teams in
the workplace. Effective leaders help build trust and confidence among team members by
establishing that their fellow employees’ intentions are good and there is no reason to be careful
around the group or to be protective. Lencioni (2002) stressed that team members should get
comfortable being vulnerable around each other. Being vulnerable means that team members
should know that their individual vulnerabilities will not be used against each other. Individual
vulnerabilities include requests for help, mistakes, interpersonal shortcomings, skill deficiencies,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 33
and weaknesses. Lencioni (2002) observed that teams that lack trust waste valuable time and
energy managing behaviors and interactions within the workplace.
Another key to effective leadership is having the ability to differentiate between good
leadership and good management. Northouse (2010) asserted that leadership and management
are similar, yet different, in many ways. Bennis and Nanus (1985) suggested managers focus on
execution and leaders focus on purpose. They also suggested that “managers do things right and
leaders do the right thing” (as cited in Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 343). Kotter (1996) described
management as a set of processes that keep a complicated system of technology and people
going smoothly. Leadership, on the other hand, is a set of processes responsible for creating
organizations or adapting them to dynamically changing environments. Effective leadership
defines the vision of the future, aligns employees with that vision, and inspires employees to
make the future happen despite all the obstacles and hurdles. Kotter (1996) asserted that
successful organizational change is predicated upon 70 to 90 percent leadership and only 10 to
30 percent management.
As mentioned previously in Chapter 1, the situation involving employee satisfaction at
the NPS and in CLNP is an intriguing case because according to the 2012 FEVS results, NPS
employees consistently gave their first-line supervisors satisfactory ratings. Buckingham and
Coffman (1999) posited that supervisors are the key to strong workplaces, and thus highly
satisfied employees. In the NPS case, however, NPS employees appear satisfied with their
supervisors but still have low overall employee satisfaction ratings. Managing change is
important but the much bigger challenge is effectively leading change. Kotter (1996) argued that:
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 34
Only leadership can blast through the many sources of corporate inertia. Only leadership
can motivate the actions needed to alter behavior in any significant way. Only leadership
can get change to stick by anchoring it in the very culture of an organization. (p. 30)
Effective leaders may also use a strong human relations aspect. According to Fernandez
(2008), relations-oriented behaviors foster harmonious and emotionally supportive work
environments that contribute to increased levels of employee satisfaction and motivation.
Bolman and Deal (2008) suggested that this ‘human resource’ approach maximizes the potential
of the relationship between people and organizations because organizations need employees and
vice versa. Both employees and organizations benefit from leaders who utilize the human
resource management approach because employees find meaningful and satisfying work and
organizations get the talent and energy they need to succeed. Bass (1990) argued that this type of
leadership behavior has been linked to increased employee satisfaction, subordinate
performance, group productivity, and goal achievement.
Finally, effective leaders can also be transformational leaders. Empirical research by
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996) demonstrated that transformational leadership can
motivate followers to exceed expected performance and can lead to increased levels of employee
satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Bass and Riggio (2006) defined transformational leadership as a leadership approach that
creates positive and valuable change in followers. Transformational leaders actually and
influentially change subordinates into becoming leaders themselves. Burns (1978) reported that
transformational leadership is a process in which leaders and followers helped each other
advance to a higher level of motivation and morale. Burns (1978) further stated that
transformational leadership creates significant change in people’s lives and in organizations.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 35
Transformational leaders change expectations and aspirations in their employees and redesign
their perceptions and values.
Bass (1998) asserted transformational leadership involves leaders’ personalities and their
traits and abilities to make changes through their example. Transformational leadership also
involves leaders’ abilities to realize an energizing vision and to create challenging goals.
Transformational leaders also motivate employees by helping followers align their personal
values to support the collective goals/vision of their organization while also raising awareness
about the importance and value of designated outcomes (Jung & Avolio, 2000). Bass and Riggio
(2006) added that a transformational leader focuses on transforming others to be encouraging
and harmonious, to help and look out for each other, and to look out for the organization as a
whole.
As a result, transformational leadership enhances the performance, morale, and
motivation of followers. Transformational leaders develop their own leadership capacity by
stimulating and inspiring followers to achieve extraordinary outcomes. Bass and Riggio (2006)
observed that transformational leaders help followers develop and grow into leaders by
responding to individual followers’ needs by empowerment and alignment of individuals’
objectives and goals, the leader’s objectives and goals, the group’s objectives and goals, and the
objectives and goals of the larger organization.
Northouse (2010) reported there are four components of transformational leadership:
(a) idealized influence (also known as charismatic leadership), (b) inspirational motivation,
(c) intellectual stimulation, (d) and individualized consideration.
When transformational leaders use idealized influence, they act as role models that make
followers respect, admire, and trust them (Bass, 1998). Trust in the transformational leader is an
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 36
important variable that influences the effectiveness of transformational leadership (Podsakoff,
Mackenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Yukl, 1999). This trust causes followers to believe that
their leaders are persistent and determined, display extraordinary capabilities, and as a result,
followers identify with these types of leaders. Bass (1998) asserted that transformational leaders
are also willing to take risks, instill pride in others, can be relied upon to do the right thing, and
consistently exercise high ethical and moral standards.
Until trust is established, in the initial stage of transforming existing conditions,
employees can have a high level of uncertainty, anxiety, frustration, and fear (Kotter, 1996).
Jung and Avolio (2000) reported that trust is what enables a transformational leader and
employees to persist and to overcome obstacles. Transformational leaders increase followers’
trust levels by sacrificing for the good of their teams, demonstrating persistence to achieve the
vision, showing concern for their needs, and by honoring agreements (Kirkpatrick & Locke,
1996).
In terms of inspirational motivation, Bass (1998) asserted that leaders that inspire their
employees create a sense of esprit de corps. Transformational leaders provide meaning and
challenge to everyday work goals while displaying enthusiasm and optimism. They also create a
shared vision and an atmosphere of commitment to goals. Bass and Bass (2008) noted
transformational leaders have communication skills that make their vision precise, powerful,
understandable, and engaging. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) found followers’ beliefs and values
increased when leaders articulated visions with an emphasis on quality. As a result, followers
with a common vision believe in their abilities, are encouraged and optimistic about the future,
and invest more time and effort in their tasks. Jung and Avolio (2000) observed that developing a
shared vision is key in the transformational leadership process.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 37
Leaders with inspirational motivation are able to communicate a sense of optimism about
future goals and challenge followers with high standards. Bass and Bass (2008) argued that, in
order to be motivated to take action, followers need to have a strong sense of purpose. Purpose
and meaning infuses energy that drives a group and an organization forward. Jung and Avolio
(2000) noted that employee motivation and productivity increases when identified organizational
goals are articulated by the leader.
Transformational leaders who intellectually stimulate their employees by encouraging
creativity and innovation foster an atmosphere in which employees think about old problems in a
new way (Bass, 1998). Transformational leaders also prefer to criticize in private and avoid
situations that involve publicly criticizing others. These leaders solicit ideas from their
employees, take risks, and challenge assumptions (Bass & Bass, 2008). Transformational
leaders develop and encourage employees who think independently and outside of the box
(Barker, 1993). Bass and Bass (2008) added that these types of leaders believe that unexpected
situations are seen as opportunities to learn and that learning is a respected value.
Transformational leaders encourage their employees to be inquisitive, think critically, and figure
out new and better ways to accomplish tasks. Hock (2005) believes that ordinary people can do
extraordinary things when their ingenuity is released and their spirit is challenged. Hock (2005)
posited, “Lead yourself, lead your superiors, lead your peers, and free your people to do the
same. All else is trivia” (p. 50).
Finally, the individualized consideration component of transformational leadership
incorporates the role that leaders play as coaches and mentors (Bass & Bass, 2008).
Additionally, open communication is common, differences are accepted, and individual desires
and needs are respected. Transformational leaders with individualized consideration frequently
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 38
give employees personalized attention and actively listen to them resulting in employees
developing higher levels of potential (Bass, 1998). Transformational leaders offer empathy and
give important support while constantly challenging employees. This leadership element focuses
on respect and rewards individual employee contribution to the team. In the end, employees
develop aspirations for self-improvement and have intrinsic motivation for their work (Bass &
Bass, 2008).
Additional Factors that Affect Employee Satisfaction
Need for Observable Workplace Autonomy
There are multiple variables and factors when it comes to employee satisfaction but,
according to the literature, one important component of employee satisfaction is autonomy
(Bontis, Richards, & Serenko, 2011; Grunig, 1990). Pintrich (2003) described autonomy as the
desire to have control over one’s behavior. Hackman and Oldham (1975) defined autonomy as,
“The degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the
employee in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying them
out” (p. 162). Furthermore, Hsieh (2010) described in his first framework for employee
satisfaction (Happiness Framework 1), that the first of four keys to employee ‘happiness’ is
perceived control. As an example, Hsieh (2010) reported that in the call center of Zappos.com,
call center representatives previously had no control over receiving annual raises. Zappos.com
management then decided to implement a call center ‘skills sets’ system of 20 different skill sets
with a small increase in pay associated with learning the new skills. Hsieh (2010) observed that
call center representatives were much happier being in control of their own pay and attaining
skill sets of their own choice. Finally, Locke and Latham (1990) posited that employees can
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 39
easily accept assigned work goals and still be motivated to do their best if they are allowed
considerable degrees of freedom in deciding how those work goals are accomplished.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
A discussion of the variables and factors that influence employee satisfaction would not
be complete without mentioning the role of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as pertaining to
individual employees (Bolman & Deal, 1984; Jenkins, 2009). Maslow (1954) posited that
individuals are motivated by different wants, however, some wants are more fundamental than
others. Maslow (1954) grouped human needs into five basic categories, arranged in a progressive
hierarchy from lowest to highest need: (a) physiological, (b) safety, (c) social/belonging,
(d) esteem, and (e) self-actualization. Once the two lower physical and well-being needs are met,
people are then motivated by social needs such as inclusion, love, and belongingness as well as
ego needs like recognition, respect, and self-esteem. Once the four lower needs are met, self-
actualization can occur. According to Bolman and Deal (1984), self-actualization is when a
person develops to their fullest and ultimate potential (Bolman & Deal, 1984). Maslow (1998)
posited that individuals have a continued need to move up to higher levels of motivation.
According to Alderfer (1972), Latham and Pinder (2005), Lawler and Shuttle (1973), and
Schneider and Alderfer (1973), numerous studies attempting to validate Maslow’s theory have
produced mixed results because the theory is difficult to test. Despite modest empirical evidence,
Maslow’s ideas are widely accepted and influential when it comes to employee satisfaction in
organizational environments (Bolman & Deal, 1984).
Maslow’s influence can be seen in both the public and private sectors. In his study
dealing with retention and employee satisfaction of civilian Department of Defense engineers
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 40
and scientists, Jenkins (2009) asserted that Maslow’s theory is translatable to job-related factors.
Jenkins’ (2009) workplace interpretation of Maslow’s hierarchy needs is shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in the Workplace
Motivational Order Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Workplace Interpretation of
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Highest Self-Actualization Needs Meaning, Innovation
Esteem Needs Position, Rank, Respect
Community Needs Teams, Co-Workers,
Professional Organizations
Security Needs Income Security, Freedom
from Fear, Safe Working
Conditions
Lowest Physiological Needs Wages, Benefits
Note. Adapted from Jenkins (2009).
In the private sector, Waterman (1994) cited the Manager’s Guide at Federal Express:
[M]odern behavioral scientists such as Abraham Maslow… have shown that virtually
every person has a hierarchy of emotional needs, from basic safety, shelter, and
sustenance to the desire for respect, satisfaction, and a sense of accomplishment. Slowly
these values have appeared as the centerpiece of progressive company policies, always
with remarkable results. (p. 92)
In his book, Delivering Happiness: A Path to Profits, Passion, and Purpose, CEO of
Zappos.com, Tony Hsieh (2010) argued that the one of the main keys to success and productivity
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 41
in Zappos.com was employee satisfaction based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. In his book,
Peak: How Great Companies Get Their Mojo from Maslow, CEO of the Joie de Vivre
Hospitality chain, Chip Conley (2007), also attributed high employee satisfaction to Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs.
Summary
According to the literature, it is apparent that the construct of employee satisfaction is not
easily defined. Chapter 2 attempted to isolate the major variables and factors which the literature
point to as antecedents necessary for increased employee satisfaction. Specifically, employees’
needs for more observable communication, self-efficacy, accountability, and effective leadership
styles may be the possible causes of knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational
performance gaps in many workplaces (Clark & Estes, 2008). In turn, these performance gaps
could have detrimental effects on overall employee satisfaction (refer to Appendix A).
Addressing employee needs may be the first and most important step in any bureaucracy or
company interested in positive organizational change (Hsieh, 2010; Jenkins, 2009).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 42
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this case study was to understand what stakeholders in Casa Linda
National Park (CLNP) point to as assumed causes of low employee satisfaction. As previously
mentioned in Chapter 1, 2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) results showed that
National Park Service (NPS) employees were unsatisfied in multiple categories (PPS, 2012;
Repanshek, 2012). Therefore, the gap analysis model by Clark and Estes (2008) was chosen to
be the primary framework in attempting to understand and improve low employee satisfaction in
CLNP. The reason is that the gap analysis model would focus on CLNP employees’ perceptions
of their organizational environment pertaining to potential knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational performance gaps. Research findings from this study could be used by CLNP
employees and leaders to address low employee satisfaction in CLNP and possibly may provide
other NPS park leaders some direction and a starting point on how to address low employee
satisfaction in their respective parks.
The study questions guiding this investigation are:
1. What are the causes of CLNP employee knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational performance gaps 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 describes the two major sections on the methodology of this case study:
(a) the research design, and (b) the gap analysis model. In this case study, the focus of the
analysis will be to first determine the assumed causes of low employee satisfaction at CLNP by
analyzing the 2012 FEVS results and the literature pertaining to employee satisfaction. The
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 43
second part of the analysis will be to then validate those assumed causes via qualitative methods
using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model as a conceptual framework.
Research Design
Qualitative research has a long tradition in the behavioral and social sciences, but only in
recent decades has it gained a large following in many applied fields (Galvan, 2009). Qualitative
methods use a different approach to scholarly inquiry than quantitative research. Creswell (2009)
reported that qualitative procedures utilize “different philosophical assumptions; strategies of
inquiry; and methods of data collection, analysis, and interpretation” (p. 173).
According to Kemmis and Wilkinson (1998) and Mertens (2003), knowledge is socially
constructed individuals’ engagement with people and their environment as well as a person’s
individual interactions. Therefore, qualitative research uses methods that immerse researchers in
the everyday life of research settings (Creswell, 2003). Based on the perceptions and values of
participants, meaning is generated from analyzed data collected in the field. Insightful meaning
helps explain complex situations, experiences, and relationships. Patton (2002) and Straus and
Corbin (1994) added that qualitative methods tell a story by communicating and capturing
multiple accounts from multiple perspectives of people who were present at the event being
investigated. Patton (2002) also 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 that they: (a) are holistic and interpretive, (b) involve the
use of a theoretical lens, (c) are based on participants’ meanings, (d) are inductive, (e) use
multiple techniques of data collection, (f) rely on the researcher as the main instrument for
collecting data, and (g) take place in the natural setting (Creswell, 2009).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 44
By having direct access to front-line CLNP employees for individual interviews,
qualitative methods may be more advantageous in order to identify, validate, and discuss
perceived and assumed causes of low employee satisfaction for this case study. In addition,
CLNP and NPS employees have been participating in numerous employee satisfaction surveys
every other year since the inception of the FEVS in 2002 (U.S. Office of Personnel Management
[USOPM], 2012). It may be possible that CLNP employees might be fatigued from taking
multiple quantitative surveys at this point in time. Hock (2005) and Kotter (1996) reported that
many organizations fail to achieve positive organizational change because they are bloated with
numbers and data but starved for wisdom and understanding. This case study was the first to
examine employee satisfaction in CLNP using qualitative methods. In the situation of CLNP, the
interpersonal and insightful advantages of qualitative methods over quantitative methods may
effectively shed more light for understanding the reasons behind low employee satisfaction.
Description of the Problem-Solving Framework (Gap Analysis) and Methodology
The gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008) is used to establish and measure
quantifiable goals and indicators, assess gaps, and investigate and resolve, motivation, and
organizational issues. In essence, the gap analysis model is a diagnostic tool to examine the
human causes behind performance gaps. According to Clark and Estes (2008), the gap analysis is
systematic and uses a problem solving approach that improves performance and achieves
organizational goals. The gap analysis clarifies short-term and long-term organizational and
individual goals, assesses these goals, and describes gaps from actual levels of performance or
the steps needed to achieve desired levels. Rueda (2011) reported that the gap analysis model
investigates and validates assumed causes of gaps so that resources and solutions are directed
toward important causes of gaps in performance. The gap analysis has real-world application
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 45
because it is designed to assist organizations in solving real-world problems. In this section, the
methodology is explained and then applied to CLNP.
Identification of the Problem
The problem, as identified by CLNP, was defined as overall low employee satisfaction
ratings in multiple categories as indicated on the 2012 FEVS. After identifying the problem,
there are six more general steps in the gap analysis model: (a) define/list goals and goal areas,
(b) determine performance gaps, (c) identification of causes, (d) validation of assumed causes,
(e) develop, identify, and implement solutions to close performance gaps, and (f) evaluate
outcomes and results (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The following sections will discuss
the first four general steps in the gap analysis model. Chapters 5 and 6 of this case study will
encompass the fourth and fifth steps in the gap analysis model in conjunction with the findings
presented in Chapter 4.
Define/List Goals and Goal Areas
Rueda (2011) reported that when defining and listing goal areas, it is important to define
measurable goals at the long-term level (global goals), intermediate level (medium goals that
lead to long-term goals), and short-term level (day-to-day goals). Goals provide direction and
help determine when to change the current course of action. Long-term (global) goals take from
one to five years to achieve. Intermediate goals take weeks or months to complete. Short-term
goals can be achieved in days or hours. Similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, it is important to
accomplish lower-level goals first in order to build a foundation toward higher level goals
(Rueda, 2011). According to Kotter (1996), smaller victories build momentum, which can be
used to focus on larger and more complex goals. In the case of CLNP, the goal is to close
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 46
employee performance gaps and incrementally increase employee satisfaction ratings by the
2014 and 2016 FEVS.
Determine Performance Gaps
Once goals have been defined and listed, it is important to gauge current performance to
see how far it is from achieving those goals (Rueda, 2011). This second stage of the gap analysis
involves comparing goals to a standard that represents desired levels of achievement or
performance. The performance gap is then quantified by subtracting current performance levels
from the standard. Clark and Estes (2008) recommended using a respective industry leader’s
achievements as benchmarks or standards for comparison. For CLNP, performance was
measured via the 2012 FEVS. The park’s scores will be one of the items discussed in the next
section describing the identification of assumed causes to be validated, step three of the
methodology.
Identification of Assumed Causes
The third step of the gap analysis involves an identification of assumed causes. An
identification of assumed causes involves listing causes that may be the root cause of subpar
performance in relation to goals. Sources of this preliminary list of causes include the research
literature addressed in Chapter 2, assumed causes from theory, and the park’s performance on the
2012 FEVS.
Assumed causes from the literature.
As discussed in Chapter 2, employees’ needs for more observable communication, self-
efficacy, accountability, and effective leadership styles may be the possible causes of
knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational performance gaps in many workplaces (Clark &
Estes, 2008). In the case of CLNP, such performance gaps may be the assumed causes of low
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 47
employee satisfaction ratings. The findings presented in Chapter 4 will discuss which of the
major variables and factors associated with employee satisfaction, as discussed in Chapter 2,
were found to be the most pertinent in CLNP.
Assumed causes from theory.
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). Many times action is taken on assumed causes without first
validating those causes. Taking action on assumed causes can only compound the problem. Also,
it is not unusual that there may be multiple gaps or causes at play. Rueda (2011) suggested to list
and address causes directly so that solutions are appropriately targeted to the roots of the actual
problem.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), the main three causes of performance gaps are: (a)
employees’ knowledge and skills, (b) employees’ motivation to achieve a goal, and
(c) organizational barriers that may impede and obstruct the work environment. In terms of
knowledge and skills, employees are often unaware of their own lack of knowledge and skills or
reluctant to reveal weaknesses, so it becomes necessary to determine whether employees know
how to achieve performance goals. The knowledge component of the performance gap becomes
apparent when it seems that some or all employees do not know how to accomplish their desired
goals or cannot figure things out on their own quickly. Employees may need more knowledge to
achieve a goal if they have not achieved the same performance goal or similar goal in the recent
past. Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) framework specified the four types of knowledge:
(a) factual, (b) conceptual, (c) procedural, and (d) metacognitive. Factual knowledge is basic
knowledge of facts specific to domains, contexts, or disciplines. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 48
posited that recalling, recognizing, and remembering are the cognitive functions associated with
factual knowledge. Conceptual knowledge is knowledge of structures, models, theories,
generalizations, principles, classifications, or categories. Having conceptual knowledge takes a
macro-oriented perspective because it is the understanding of how things work in complex and
organized systems. Conceptually knowing how things work cognitively supports learners’
abilities to organize, categorize, and contrast small bits of factual information. Learners with
procedural knowledge know how to do things and are able to apply that knowledge. Finally,
learners with metacognitive knowledge possess awareness of their own cognition and cognitive
processes. Having 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 conditional aspects of given activities and problems
and it a key aspect of strategic behavior in solving problems.
According to Pintrich and Schunk (1996), motivation is an internal psychological process
that helps employees get going, keeps them moving, and helps them get jobs done. Clark and
Estes (2008) asserted that, “Motivation influences three very critical aspects of our work and
private lives — first, choosing to work towards a goal; second, persisting at it until it is achieved;
and third, how much mental effort we invest to get the job done” (p. 44). Motivation gaps are
more complicated than knowledge and skill gaps because specialists are less familiar with them.
Mayer (2011) added there are four components of motivation: (a) it is directed (aimed at
accomplishing a goal), (b) it is energizing (fosters intensity and persistence), (c) it is activating
(instigating behavior), and (d) it is personal (it is internal to the individual). When intelligent and
experienced employees do not have proper motivation, they lack direction, persistence, and
energy to work productively. There are three types of motivational processes that affect
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 49
employee motivation in a work environment: (a) active choice, (b) persistence, and (c) mental
effort (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2009). Employee self-efficacy encompasses all three
motivational processes. In addition, according to expectancy value motivational theory,
motivation is driven by four constructs: (a) intrinsic interest, (b) attainment value, (c) utility
value, and (d) the perceived cost of engaging in the activity. Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser,
and Davis-Kean (2006) define intrinsic interest as the enjoyment people expect to experience
while engaging in tasks. Attainment value is the extent to which engaging in tasks is consistent
with people’s identities or self-images. Connell and Wellborn (1991) argued that motivation to
participate in the demands of any specific setting or situation is determined by the extent to
which the environment provides an opportunity to experience a sense of competence, social
relatedness, and autonomy. Basically, individuals have a need to feel like valuable contributors
to their institutions and social groups. Finally, utility value is the value of tasks which facilitate
people’s long range goals or in helping those people obtain immediate or long range external
rewards (Wigfield et al., 2006).
According to Rueda (2011), many times organizational issues are the main cause of
performance gaps and often lead to additional learning and motivation gaps. Examples of red
flags that signal organizational barriers are when employees report that organizational processes
do not work or they have inadequate resource levels. Further problems such as faulty procedures
or processes, inadequate facilities, and missing tools can delay or prevent productive work.
Finally, an organizational barrier is usually responsible when knowledge and motivation can be
ruled out (Clark & Estes, 2008).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 50
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) 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) (Kamensky, 1998a). The purposes 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 got a 40% response rate
with a sample of 13,657 respondents (Kamensky, 1998b). The results provided much insight into
how federal employees felt at that time. 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 2).
The 2012 FEVS has evolved into a tool to provide a snapshot of federal employees’
perceptions of working conditions in their agencies. In ensuring the Federal Government has an
effective civilian workforce, FEVS results provide critical information for the challenges leaders
face in their agencies. The FEVS provides general indicators for how well the Federal
Government manages its employees. The OPM and other 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: CLNP 51
term goals, thus making government more effective and responsive to the needs of the American
people (USOPM, 2012).
Table 2
Employee Results on the 1998 Federal Employee Survey
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%
Note. Adapted from Kamensky (1998a, pp. 1-2).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 52
The 2012 FEVS 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 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 FEVS, consisting of 37
departments/large agencies and 45 small/independent agencies. Respondents included full-time,
permanent, (new in 2012) part-time, and non-seasonal employees. The 2012 FEVS 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 response of
46.1%. Respondents included all federal occupations including psychologists, engineers, food
inspectors, linguists, teachers, nuclear physicists, border control specialists, air traffic controllers,
nurses, etc. Employee opinions were given by all races and ages, entry-level to senior executives,
military veterans, those with disabilities, those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
community, etc. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (2012), the results of
the 2012 FEVS truly represent employee diversity in the Federal Government.
The survey was administered from April to June, 2012. Specific agency deployment dates
were staggered throughout the timeframe. Each agency was offered a six-week administrative
period but could opt for shorter period. The survey was a self-administered Web survey. The
OPM distributed paper versions to fewer than 1% of respondents. To produce survey estimates
that accurately represented the survey population, data collected from the 2012 survey were
weighted. The concern was that un-weighted data may produce biased estimates of population
statistics. The weights developed for the survey take into account the variable probabilities of
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 53
selection across the known demographic characteristics, non-response, 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 FEVS included six indices: (a) the global satisfaction index, (b) employee
engagement index, and (c) the four Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework
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 agencies as good place to work,
plus their satisfaction with their job, pay, and organization.
The FEVS 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, and 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) leaders lead. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (2012) reported
that:
An initial exploratory factor analysis revealed factors consisting of 16 items (in the
areas/categories of) [Leadership, Supervision, and Intrinsic Work Experiences] with a
single, underlying factor (Conditions to Employee Engagement). 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. (p. 34)
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 54
The four indices of the Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework
(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.
In terms of the overall data analysis, the OPM performed several statistical analyses for
the 2012 FEVS, 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 survey used statistical analyses on all survey items for all demographic
categories in the 2012 FEVS with an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) rating of at least
.65 or better. According to Salkind (2008), the internal consistency of an instrument is shown to
be valid as it approaches a Cronbach’s alpha rating of 1. In the case of the 2012 FEVS, with a
Cronbach’s alpha rating of .65 or better, all survey items on the 2012 FEVS were shown to be
quite valid.
For this case study, 2012 NPS FEVS results were used as a baseline in comparison to
2012 CLNP FEVS results (see Table 3 and Appendix B). According to 2012 FEVS results, Casa
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 55
Linda National Park (CLNP) reported low employee satisfaction ratings across multiple
categories (see Table 3).
Table 3
2012 FEVS Scores for Casa Linda National Park and the NPS Per Category
Category CLNP score Overall NPS score
Best Places to Work 50% 63%
Skills Mission Match 78% 79%
Teamwork 45% 61%
Pay and Benefits 65% 58%
Work/Life Balance 43% 51%
Training Development 39% 51%
Support for Diversity 38% 58%
Strategic Management 39% 52%
Effective Leadership: Leader 22% 46%
Effective Leadership: Supervisor 52% 63%
Effective Leadership: Empowerment 26% 46%
Effective Leadership: Fairness 29% 53%
Performance-based Rewards &
Advancement
36% 43%
Family Friendly Culture 67% 76%
Note. Source: 2012 FEVS results per region and park.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 56
Assumed causes from the 2012 FEVS.
In order to get an initial indication of employee satisfaction at CLNP, the results for
CLNP on the 2012 FEVS were reviewed prior to the EVS employee workshops in CLNP. For
the purpose of this case study, EVS items 1-71 were classified as possible assumed causes of the
knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational performance gaps by CLNP employees. Seven
items on the 2012 FEVS were then placed into the category of knowledge, 17 items were placed
into the category of motivation, and 47 items were placed into the category of organization
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The first 71 of the 84 EVS items were then re-worded to frame a different
perspective onto the CLNP work environment (see Appendix E). In terms of specific
percentages, NPS leaders determined that scores on the 2012 FEVS that were less than 60% were
cause for concern and scores in the 30% to 40% range were considered low.
Again, 2012 NPS FEVS results were used as a baseline in comparison to 2012 CLNP
FEVS results. The aggregate responses of CLNP employees to the 2012 FEVS were used to
develop the possible root causes of the assumed knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational
performance gaps of CLNP employees.
The median percentage for items related to knowledge/skills on the 2012 FEVS for
CLNP employees was 50.4% positive. While considered less than stellar by NPS standards, the
median knowledge/skills percentage was the second highest of the positive ratings among the
possible knowledge/skills, motivation, and organization causes of low employee satisfaction at
CLNP. There were four out of seven items that were under 60%. Item #64 was particularly
noteworthy because it was the lowest score as CLNP employees were 12% positive they were
satisfied with the information they receive from management on what was going on in their
organization (see Figure 2 and Appendix B).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 57
Figure 2. CLNP 2012 FEVS positive percentages for knowledge/skills items under 60%
The median percentage for items related to motivation on the 2012 FEVS for CLNP
employees was 54.3% positive. While also considered less than stellar by the NPS, the median
motivation percentage was the highest of the positive ratings among the possible
knowledge/skills, motivation, and organization causes of low employee satisfaction at CLNP.
There were 9 out of 17 items that were under 60%. Item #61 was particularly noteworthy
because CLNP employees were 29% positive they had a high level of respect for their
organization’s senior leaders (see Figure 3 and Appendix B).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 58
Figure 3. CLNP 2012 FEVS positive percentages for motivation items under 60%
The median percentage for items related to organization on the 2012 FEVS for CLNP
employees was 41.5% positive. The median organizational percentage was the lowest of the
positive ratings among the possible knowledge/skills, motivation, and organization causes of low
employee satisfaction at CLNP. There were 39 out of 47 items that were under 60%. Item #9 was
particularly noteworthy because it was the lowest score as CLNP employees were 6% positive
they had sufficient resources to get their jobs done. Items #53 and #54 were also of particular
interest because CLNP employees were 23% positive that in the NPS, leaders generate high
levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce and that NPS leaders maintain high
standards of honesty and integrity (see Figure 4 and Appendix B).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 59
Figure 4. CLNP 2012 FEVS positive percentages for organization items under 60%
Based on the low scores on FEVS Items #64, #61, #9, #53, and #54, it appears the root
causes of the knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational employee performance gaps in
CLNP 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 CLNP employees’ needs for observable communication, accountability, and leadership
behaviors.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 60
Summary of assumed causes.
As seen in the previous sections, the assumed causes of low employee satisfaction in
CLNP may be pinpointed by considering: (a) the literature associated with employee satisfaction
(Chapter 2), (b) the important role of employee knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational
performance gaps, and (c) CLNP scores in the 2012 FEVS. Findings in Chapter 4 will discuss
how all these identified assumed causes contribute to low employee satisfaction in CLNP.
Validation of Assumed Causes
The fourth step in the gap analysis process is to validate the assumed causes. According
to Clark and Estes (2008), all presumed causes of performance gaps should be validated. In this
case study, validation of assumed causes was accomplished by analysis and triangulation of three
sources of data: observations of the EVS workshops, document analysis of CLNP employee
action plans, and individual interviews. Clark and Estes (2008) posited that focus groups,
interviews, and surveys are the best ways to identify employees’ beliefs and perceptions in the
diagnosis of performance gaps. Rueda (2011) observed that, “one check on the accuracy of your
understanding of a setting is that people in that setting would agree that you have captured the
essence of that setting” (p. 79). Ultimately, analysis of three separate sources of data allowed this
investigator two things. First, it narrowed down the potential list of assumed causes to be
prioritized and validated. Second, it allowed for a more accurate and comprehensive
understanding of the root causes of performance gaps contributing to low employee satisfaction
in CLNP.
In addition, in qualitative research, Maxwell (2013) asserted that triangulation was one of
the methods used to address threats to validity. He described triangulation as the collection of
information from a range of settings and people using different methods. Triangulation reduces
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 61
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, 2013, p. 128).
Finally, access to vital data would not have been possible if not for the Workplace
Enrichment and Learning and Development (L&D) Offices of the NPS. In January 2013, the
NPS L&D Office reached out to the University of Southern California (USC) Rossier School of
Education for assistance in the examination of low employee satisfaction ratings in the NPS. Due
to the partnership, cooperation, and support of the NPS L&D Office, access to non-sensitive
internal NPS documents and CLNP employees to conduct individual interviews were granted for
this case study. For the observations, CLNP was one of 24 NPS parks selected by the
Organizational Development (OD) branch of the NPS to receive individualized support and
assistance (National Park Service Office of Workforce Management [NPSOWM, 2012). This
support and assistance came in the form of two EVS employee workshops over the course of two
days in CLNP, hosted by a representative of the NPS OD branch. Working with the CLNP
employees in seven small groups, the EVS workshops shared the CLNP results of the FEVS to
employees and tried to identify and address actionable items that may increase employee
satisfaction. These EVS workshops began in April, 2013. All CLNP employees were encouraged
to attend the EVS workshops. The sample used in this case study was the 23 CLNP employees
observed in the EVS workshops and the seven individual employees that volunteered for
individual interviews afterward. Out of 50 CLNP employees, at least 10 participated in the 2012
FEVS.
Background of the Site.
CLNP encompasses 172,000 acres and 95% of the park is covered by water. Different
marine activities and preservation of numerous ecological systems make CLNP a unique park.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 62
The uniqueness of CLNP is complemented by the many different kinds of NPS employees
assigned to the administration, interpretation, law enforcement, maintenance, and resource
management divisions.
Participating stakeholders.
On day one of the EVS workshops, 10 CLNP employees participated and were divided
into three groups. On day two, 13 different CLNP employees participated and were divided into
four groups. These front line employees represented all of the divisions in CLNP. There was a
mix of both males and females that ranged in age, ethnicity, federal grade/step, and years of
service in the NPS. At the conclusion of both EVS workshops, this investigator asked for
volunteers to participate in individual interviews. As a result, a total of 13 CLNP employees
volunteered for individual interviews. Out of those 13 CLNP employees, seven were
subsequently interviewed. It should be noted that there were no seasonal NPS employees present
in the EVS workshops because it was not the peak season for CLNP.
In order to protect the confidentiality of the seven CLNP employees who participated in
the individual interviews, their names, genders, position in CLNP and the NPS, federal
grade/step, and number of years of service in the NPS were withheld. For the purpose of this
case study, they were given generic monikers (e.g., Employees A-G).
Employees A-E were in the first EVS workshop day. Employees F-G were in the second
EVS workshop day. All employees were interviewed on the phone and were emailed the same
follow up questions at a later date (see Table 4).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 63
Table 4
CLNP Employee Interview Duration
First EVS workshop Second EVS workshop Interview Duration (minutes)
Employee A 120
Employee B 55
Employee C 90
Employee D 41
Employee E 95
Employee F 67
Employee G 75
EVS workshop observations.
Observations of the planned EVS employee workshops in CLNP were the first step in the
validation process. Multiple observations were accomplished by attending both scheduled
workshops and staying for the entire duration. Observations were as discreet and covert as
possible so as not to hinder the process of the workshops. According to Creswell (2009), an
observational protocol should be used to record observational data (see Appendix C). The
observational protocol used at the EVS workshops was the use of both descriptive and reflective
hand-written notes. Creswell (2009) reported that descriptive notes are accounts of particular
events or activities, descriptions of the physical setting, reconstructions of dialogue, and portraits
of participants. Bogdan and Biklen (1992) added that reflective notes are the researcher’s
personal thoughts such as prejudices, impressions, hunches, ideas, problems, feelings, and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 64
speculation. There were four reasons for conducting EVS employee workshop observations. The
first reason was to try and get close to the data and observe firsthand the dynamics, attitudes, and
communication innuendos of front-line CLNP employees. The second reason was that
observations of EVS employee workshops may assist in substantiating information that was
gathered later from document analysis of CLNP employee action plans and the individual
interviews. The third reason was to look to validate the assumed causes developed from the EVS
data, theory, and the literature. The fourth reason was to attempt to identify causes not previously
assumed.
The first EVS workshop lasted about 3.5 hours and was conducted in the visitor center of
CLNP. After employee introductions, the results of the CLNP scores on the 2012 FEVS 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. CLNP employees were then divided into
three groups and began working on action plans to identify and address root causes of low
employee satisfaction in CLNP. The action plan format included identifying the focus area,
stating the purpose/objective of the plan (including asking what needs to be created, started,
changed, developed, or stopped), developing possible actions for implementation, stating the
results the action plan would have (including what would it increase, improve, or decrease) if
implemented, and what resources would be required to carry out the action plan. Observation
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 65
was made of two of the three groups. Descriptive and reflective hand-written notes were taken
during the duration of the workshop.
The second EVS workshop lasted about 3.75 hours and was also conducted in the visitor
center of CLNP. The agenda followed the same pattern from the previous day. When CLNP
employees were divided into four groups and began working on action plans, observation was
made of two of the four groups. Descriptive and reflective hand-written notes were also taken
during the duration of the workshop.
From the discussions in both EVS workshops, CLNP employees identified the possible
root causes of the knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational performance gaps responsible
for low employee satisfaction in CLNP. Special attention was made to see if CLNP employees
identified any or all of the four evidence-based variables of communication, self-efficacy,
accountability, and leadership mentioned in Chapter 2 as the possible root causes.
Document analysis of the employee action plans.
The action plans drafted by the CLNP employee groups over the course of two EVS
workshops were examined as the second step in the validation process. At the conclusion of each
EVS workshop, this investigator was able to take digital pictures of the action plans drafted by
each of the CLNP employee groups. In conjunction with the digital pictures, detailed
handwritten notes were also taken of the action plans. The employee action plans were then
examined for common themes in terms of the possible root causes of the assumed
knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational performance gaps of low employee satisfaction
in CLNP. Finally, the action plans were also examined to corroborate the root causes of
employee discontent revealed and discussed by the employees themselves in the EVS
workshops.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 66
Individual interviews.
Qualitative interviews are interviews with participants conducted face-to-face, by
telephone, or in focus groups (Creswell, 2009). These interviews are generally unstructured and
use a few open-ended questions in order to elicit opinions and views from the participants.
In this case study, individual interviews were the last step in the validation process. At
the conclusion of each EVS workshop day, potential interview candidates were approached and
asked to participate in a private individual interview. The interviews were conducted at the
convenience of the CLNP employees. Individual interviews were conducted face-to-face or on
the telephone lasting 41-120 minutes. This investigator used an interview guide as
recommended in Patton’s (1982) interview process. An interview guide is a list of issues and
questions that are to be asked during an interview. An interview guide is prepared in advance to
be sure the same information is gathered by covering the same material but from different
participants. The interview guide for the individual interviews was developed based on the
assumed causes of low employee satisfaction mentioned in the literature review. The interview
guide for this study consisted of seven standardized open-ended questions that were designed to
encourage CLNP employees to share their thoughts and perceptions on the employee satisfaction
issues being addressed in the EVS workshops and the action plans drafted by each of the CLNP
employee groups. The questions revolved around how potential gaps in knowledge/skills,
motivation, and organizational issues affected park morale and how improvement in these three
areas could be utilized to improve employee satisfaction at CLNP (see Appendix D for the
Interview Protocol). Further validation and discussion of the possible assumed causes of the
knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational performance gaps identified by CLNP
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 67
employees in the EVS workshops and uncovered in the employee action plans were also made
possible during the individual interviews.
A total of seven individual interviews with frontline CLNP employees were conducted
over several weeks following the conclusion of the EVS workshops. Three of the seven
interviews were conducted immediately after the EVS workshops. Due to the Federal
Government shutdown from October 1st to October 16th, 2013 (Shear, 2013), however, the
remaining four interviews were conducted several weeks after the EVS workshops.
All interviews were transcribed via hand-written notes. Confidentiality of all participants
was honored and all data was properly protected during the completion of this study. At the end
of this case study, all digital pictures and handwritten notes obtained from the EVS workshops
and interviews were destroyed to protect NPS operational security.
In summary, the gap analysis model is a systematic, problem-solving diagnostic tool that
examines the human causes responsible for performance gaps. The gap analysis model sets and
measures quantifiable goals and indicators, assesses gaps, and investigates and resolves,
motivation, and organizational issues. When utilized appropriately, the gap analysis model
(Clark & Estes, 2008) can improve performance and achieve organizational goals.
Summary
This chapter explained the methodology of this case study and how the gap analysis
model by Clark and Estes (2008) was chosen to be the primary framework in attempting to
understand low employee satisfaction in CLNP. The reason is that the gap analysis model would
focus on CLNP employees’ perceptions of their organizational environment pertaining to
potential knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational performance gaps. In conjunction with
using the gap analysis, 2012 NPS FEVS results were used as a baseline in comparison to 2012
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 68
CLNP FEVS results. The aggregate responses of CLNP employees to the 2012 FEVS were then
used to develop the possible root causes of the knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational
performance gaps of CLNP employees.
Validation of assumed causes included reviewing: (a) descriptive and reflective notes
taken during EVS employee workshop observations, (b) document analysis of CLNP employee
action plans, and (c) handwritten transcriptions of individual interviews to create an overall
picture and narrative of employee satisfaction in CLNP.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 69
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
The purpose of this case study was to understand what stakeholders in Casa Linda
National Park (CLNP) point to as the assumed causes of knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational performance gaps leading to low employee satisfaction. Rueda (2011) suggested
that it was not unusual that there could be multiple problems at play in organizations with
employee performance gaps. According to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge/skills, motivation,
and organizational issues are the main human reasons behind performance gaps. It was
imperative, however, that this case study conduct an analysis of causes to pinpoint the root
causes of the CLNP employee knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational performance
gaps which were ultimately leading to low employee satisfaction. This chapter answers the first
study question: What are the causes of CLNP employee knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational performance gaps that prevent 100% employee satisfaction?
As mentioned in Chapter 3, the results for CLNP on the 2012 FEVS were examined in
order to get an initial indication of employee satisfaction at CLNP. Initial results were not
promising. Out of 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), CLNP consistently
ranked below median NPS scores in 13 categories (see Appendix B). The Pay and Benefits
category for CLNP was the only category that scored above the median NPS score.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 70
At the end of Chapter 2, this investigator mentioned how the need for observable
behaviors in terms of positive communication, self-efficacy, accountability, and leadership
practices may be the root causes of the knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational
performance gaps ultimately leading to lowered employee satisfaction in CLNP. Taking the 2012
CLNP FEVS scores in consideration with the potential root causes of the need of observable
behaviors in terms of positive communication, self-efficacy, accountability, and leadership
practices, further qualitative data was collected through observations of the EVS workshops,
document analysis of CLNP employee action plans, and individual employee interviews. This
qualitative data attempted to directly identify and validate assumed causes of low employee
satisfaction.
Report of the Findings
The first study question in this case study revolved around the inquiry of the assumed
knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational causes of low employee satisfaction in CLNP
that prevent 100% employee satisfaction. Specifically, one of the main goals was to conduct an
analysis of causes. In other words, investigating the root causes of employee subpar performance
was imperative to understanding low employee satisfaction in CLNP before drafting actionable
solutions. Through observation of the EVS workshops, document analysis of CLNP employee
action plans, and individual interviews, several root causes behind the knowledge/skills,
motivation, and organizational performance gaps were cited by CLNP employees. These root
causes revolved heavily around three of the four evidence-based variables discussed in Chapter
2. Specifically, CLNP employees wanted more information on the outcomes of park projects in
terms of who, what, where, when, why, and how park decisions were made (communication),
employees needed to feel respected in CLNP (reciprocal accountability), employees were
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 71
concerned over the decreasing park budget, and employees needed to feel a greater sense of
motivation and commitment, as well as see higher standards of honesty and integrity in CLNP
(more access to effective NPS leadership training). These employee needs substantially
contributed to the overall problem of low employee satisfaction in CLNP.
Findings for Knowledge/Skills Causes
Employees want more information in terms of who, what, where, when, why, and how
park decisions were made. In terms of the knowledge/skills performance gap, Anderson and
Krathwohl’s (2001) framework of the four types of knowledge is applicable in this study. As
mentioned in Chapter 3, the four types of knowledge are: (a) factual, (b) conceptual,
(c) procedural, and (d) metacognitive. The following qualitative findings from the observations
of the EVS workshops and individual interviews in the next section will be presented in
Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) four types of knowledge framework. These qualitative
findings build upon on Item #64 in the ‘Effective Leadership-Leader’ category in the 2012
FEVS.
Observations of EVS Workshops
At the conclusion of both EVS workshops, employees were asked to rank 13 of the 14
EVS categories by order of importance to CLNP (the 14th category of ‘Family Friendly Culture’
was not included due to overall relevance to CLNP). CLNP employees in both EVS workshops
ranked the ninth category of ‘Effective Leadership-Leader’ as the most important. There were
four items in this category. Item #64 specifically pertained to a need for employee
knowledge/skills. As mentioned in Chapter 3, the CLNP score for Item #64 on the 2012 FEVS
was 12% positive, while the median NPS score was 44% (refer to Appendix B). Of the seven
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 72
items related to knowledge/skills on the 2012 FEVS, Item #64 most pertained to the employee
knowledge performance gap.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), the first of the three main causes of performance
gaps is lack of employees’ knowledge and skills. The main knowledge/skills gap for CLNP
employees was they needed more factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge
on the CLNP decision making process. Repeatedly cited by CLNP employees, the main root
cause of the knowledge/skills gap was that employees wanted more information on the outcomes
of park projects in terms of who, what, where, when, why, and how park decisions were made.
Several CLNP employees in both EVS workshops described their perceptions of a lack of follow
through in terms of employee input in the implementation of park projects. They reported how
on numerous occasions, CLNP projects were meticulously planned in multiple division meetings
in coordination with park leadership. Employees reported that when the project was finally
started, they perceived that their input and opinions were not included. Employees also reported
that they were rarely informed by park leadership as to the reasons why their input and opinions
were left out.
Factual (Basic knowledge of facts specific to domains, contexts, or disciplines). CLNP
employees reported they wanted more basic facts about the decision-making process. Employee
A reported, “We have these big park meetings. Then everybody gets excited for about a month or
so, then momentum is lost because we’re kept out of the loop by management.” One group in the
first EVS workshop agreed: “Management talks about being transparent but is not.” Another
employee in the first EVS workshop added, “When it comes to park projects, our leaders are
selective in their feedback and implementation.”
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 73
Conceptual (Knowledge of structures, models, theories, generalizations, principles,
classifications, or categories). The need for basic factual knowledge can lead to the need for
conceptual knowledge. One employee in the second EVS workshop asked, “What happens in
closed-door management meetings?” Two employees responded by saying that the meetings
used to be open-door and there used to be a CLNP secretary to record the minutes of the
meetings but that secretary position has never been re-filled.
Procedural (Knowledge of how to do things and being able to apply such knowledge).
Many employees felt that input from employees should be taken seriously in the decision making
process and implementation since large decisions ultimately affected them. One employee in the
second EVS workshop pointed out, “People who work in the division are the best people to ask
to make huge decisions like budget cutting.” Several employees agreed with Employee G and
appeared frustrated that their input was asked but seemingly not taken seriously, “If the
outcomes are always predetermined, why ask our opinions and have meetings at all?”
Metacognitive (Knowledge that allows learners to know when and why to do certain
things). In the end, some employees questioned the utility of multiple division meetings in which
employee input was encouraged but apparently, in their views, was rarely included in the final
decision making. One senior employee with acting division chief experience in the second EVS
workshop seemed to understand the process better than others and rebutted, “You see a different
side of things when you are the leader. Sometimes you can’t please everyone. Decisions must be
made for the good of the division and park. Unfortunately, not all employees see that.” That
employee’s group agreed that tough decisions must be made; however, they just wanted to know
the justifications behind those final decisions.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 74
Document Analysis (Employee Action Plans)
Examination of the employee action plans substantiated the root cause cited by
employees in the EVS workshops. The root cause was linked to CLNP employees’
knowledge/skills issues. The root cause was that employees wanted more information on the
outcomes of park projects in terms of who, what, where, when, why, and how park decisions
were made. Conducting a qualitative content analysis (Merriam, 2009), the issue of wanting
more information and communication appeared as a major heading in five of the seven CLNP
employee action plans. As discussed in the previous section, the absence of information
exchange and clear communication between CLNP leadership and employees can lead to a
knowledge/skills gap for employees.
Individual Interviews
After the EVS workshops and document analysis of employee action plans revealed that
the main root cause (which may be responsible for an employee knowledge/skills performance
gap) was that employees wanted more information on the outcomes of park projects in terms of
who, what, where, when, why, and how park decisions were made, further validation of this
assumed cause was conducted via seven individual interviews. The interviews consisted of seven
open-ended questions (see Appendix D for the interview protocol). Question #5 of the interview
protocol asked: “Sometimes groups don’t follow through because of (knowledge) skill – they
don’t know what to do. To what extent is this a concern, in your opinion?” When this
investigator asked question #5 to the interview participants, they were specifically asked to
elaborate on the perceived need for more follow-through in terms of inclusion of employee input
in CLNP projects.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 75
Factual (Basic knowledge of facts specific to domains, contexts, or disciplines). As
observed in the EVS workshops, CLNP employees felt they wanted more facts on the CLNP
decision-making process. Employee A reiterated, “Employees get all gung ho about big
decisions because they are invited to get involved, but then nothing happens.” Employee A
added that CLNP employees rarely get clear answers from park leadership as to why projects are
never implemented in their original form.
Conceptual (Knowledge of structures, models, theories, generalizations, principles,
classifications, or categories). Several employees observed that sometimes there was a
breakdown of communication within the chain of command itself, leading to ambiguous and
incomplete information. Several employees reported that, when asked for more information on
why employee input and opinions seemingly left out of final decisions, one park leader would
say one thing, but another park leader would say another. In essence, sometimes there appeared
to be no clear communication among park leadership itself.
Procedural (Knowledge of how to do things and being able to apply such knowledge).
Again, employees felt that input from staff was imperative before leadership make park decisions
that ultimately affected front line employees. Employees A and D reported, “Management tend
to make decisions without consulting the people involved, even though those people know their
jobs best.” Employee E said that, “It’s all a show in division meetings. Park leaders are going to
do what they want anyway.” Employee F agreed with the comment that decisions were
predetermined in employee meetings, “Absolutely. Park leaders go into meetings with a foregone
conclusion in mind.” Employee C added, “When leaders do listen to others, they listen to the
wrong people — people who have no idea or not enough experience to know what they are
talking about.” Employee B suggested that the right people need to be consulted during
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 76
meetings, “Leaders need to maximize individual talents, experience, and knowledge. Listen to
staff who are out in the field daily.”
Metacognitive (Knowledge that allows learners to know when and why to do certain
things). Several employees stressed that they needed more timely and clear information (Pettit et
al., 1997). Employee E added, “People want transparency, not a blanket.” Several employees
commented on the CLNP unwritten policy on closed door management meetings. Employee D
commented that, “Some park leaders seem to have an attitude that some information should be
on a need-to-know basis.” Employee F agreed that, “There is some validity in confidentiality, but
honest and transparent answers are needed.” Employee C suggested, “Don’t hide behind closed
doors. More transparency builds trust.”
Summary of the Knowledge/Skills Data
Qualitative data for this section was collected by observation of the EVS workshops,
document analysis of CLNP employee action plans, and seven individual interviews. This
investigator was primarily concerned with finding the root causes of the CLNP employee
knowledge/skills gap. By triangulating the qualitative data collected, the main knowledge/skills
performance gap was discovered. The main knowledge/skills gap for CLNP employees was that
they wanted factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge on the decision-
making process. The main root cause of the knowledge/skills gap was that employees wanted
more information on the outcomes of park projects in terms of who, what, where, when, why,
and how park decisions were made. The primary example given by CLNP employees was the
perception of the lack of follow-through in terms of inclusion of employee input in CLNP
programs and projects.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 77
Finally, CLNP employees from both EVS workshops ranked the ‘Effective Leadership-
Leader’ category as the most salient category on the 2012 FEVS. Triangulated from the EVS
workshops, document analysis of CLNP employee action plans, and individual interviews, the
need for more open communication and exchange of information between CLNP employees and
leaders effectively validated Item #64 in the ‘Effective Leadership-Leader’ category as the main
assumed cause of the knowledge/skills performance gap for CLNP employees. The proposed
solutions for the knowledge/skills performance gap are discussed in Chapter 5.
Findings for Motivation Causes
Employees want to feel respected. As mentioned in Chapter 3, motivation is an internal
psychological process that helps employees get going, keeps them moving, and helps them get
jobs done (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that, “Motivation
influences three very critical aspects of our work and private lives — first, choosing to work
towards a goal; second, persisting at it until it is achieved; and third, how much mental effort we
invest to get the job done” (p. 44).
The following qualitative findings from the observations of the EVS workshops,
document analysis of CLNP employee action plans, and individual interviews in the next section
build upon Item #61 in the ‘Effective Leadership-Leader’ category in the 2012 FEVS because
this item focuses on the need for employee motivation.
Observations of EVS Workshops
As mentioned earlier, CLNP employees from both EVS workshops consistently ranked
the ‘Effective Leadership-Leader’ category on the 2012 FEVS as the most important. There were
four items in this category. Item #61 specifically pertained to a need for motivation. As
mentioned in Chapter 3, the CLNP score for Item #61 on the 2012 FEVS was 29% positive,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 78
while the median NPS score was 48% (refer to Appendix B). Of the 17 items related to
motivation on the 2012 FEVS, Item #61 most pertained to the employee motivation performance
gap.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), the second of the three main causes of performance
gaps is lack of employees’ motivation to achieve a goal. Repeatedly cited by CLNP employees,
the main root cause of the motivation gap was the need to feel respected in CLNP. In addition,
employees reported they wanted to work in an organizational environment where everyone
demonstrated reciprocal accountability.
In terms of the need for respect and reciprocal accountability, several CLNP employees
in both EVS workshops described their perceptions about how the previous superintendent
allowed a work environment where some employees violated serious CLNP and NPS policies
but were lightly reprimanded. One employee in the first EVS workshop noted, “Do bad things,
(you) get promoted.” Several other employees also in the first EVS workshop agreed, “The NPS
is too soft. You get eight chances before being punished.” Several CLNP employees reported
that inaction by the previous park superintendent to hold those employees accountable for their
actions created a volatile work environment where other employees felt there was little overall
trust, respect, and teamwork among employees themselves. One group in the first EVS workshop
reported there were rivalries between divisions, a lack of cooperation, favoritism showed to some
employees, and a “gotcha” attitude among some. Another group in the same EVS workshop
observed that some CLNP employees have a “me first” attitude, are not willing to socialize, and
leave exactly at the end of their shifts. One employee in the second EVS workshop agreed and
added that, “the non-engaged employees are gone by 4:30 pm.” An employee in the second EVS
workshop observed that in division meetings, “the loud ones get what they want while the quiet
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 79
employees get trampled on.” Another employee in the second EVS workshop suggested that,
“some employees are only here for a paycheck.” Finally, an employee in the second EVS
workshop claimed that even though the previous superintendent had long since retired from
CLNP, “Unfortunately, the status quo continues here.”
Document Analysis (Employee Action Plans)
Examination of the employee action plans substantiated the root cause cited by
employees in the EVS workshops. The root cause was linked to CLNP employees’ motivation
issue. The root cause was the need for employees’ to feel respected in CLNP, as well as wanting
to work in an organizational environment where everyone demonstrated reciprocal
accountability. Conducting a qualitative content analysis (Merriam, 2009), the issues CLNP
employees reported in the EVS workshops to improve employee satisfaction such as the need for
more teamwork, trust, respect, and accountability in CLNP appeared in four of the seven
employee action plans. The appearance of the issues of ‘teamwork,’ ‘trust,’ ‘respect,’ and the
need for ‘more accountability’ in four of the seven employee action plans implied that employees
lost the motivation to perform effectively due to the need to feel respected in CLNP.
Individual Interviews
After the EVS workshops and document analysis of employee action plans revealed that
the main root cause (which may be responsible for an employee motivation performance gap)
was the need to feel respected in CLNP, further validation of this assumed cause was conducted
via seven individual interviews. The interviews consisted of seven open-ended questions (see
Appendix D for the interview protocol). Question #4 of the interview protocol asked: “Thinking
about these action plans, some common reasons why groups don’t follow through are related to
motivation — meaning they don’t think it’s important. To what extent is this a concern, in your
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 80
opinion?” When this investigator asked question #4 to the interview participants, they were
specifically asked to provide examples when they felt the need for greater respect and reciprocal
accountability in CLNP.
In terms of the need for reciprocal accountability, Employee C had worked for several
federal agencies and observed that this may be a systemic problem in the NPS, not just in CLNP:
“There is zero accountability. Many people feel untouchable because the Park Service is afraid
of liability.” Employee A has also worked for several federal agencies and reported a similar
issue, “The NPS does not look after its own employees.” Employee F agreed: “The systems in
place to protect employees is a joke.”
In terms of the need for respect, as previously mentioned, several CLNP employees
reported that inaction by the previous park superintendent to hold certain employees accountable
for misconduct created a perceived atmosphere where other employees felt there was a general
lack of trust, respect, teamwork, and cooperation. Several CLNP employees also reported their
perceptions that some employees had a “gotcha” and a “me first” attitude and were shown
favoritism. Employee C observed, “There is lots of backstabbing. There is no sense of team.”
Employee F elaborated on the “gotcha” attitude among some CLNP employees:
Some employees will purposely leave a visible problem for certain others to find. And
when they do, it will be like ‘gotcha!’ They will then go tattle-tail to senior leaders. It can
sometimes get very immature. Some people act like little children.
Employee E reported the divisiveness in division meetings: “There is way too much favoritism.
There is no respect of others with more seniority or even a simple pecking order.” Employees D
and E agreed that even though many of the ‘problem’ people are gone from CLNP, the status quo
continues because, “Many of those who are now gone from the park chose ‘yes men’ to be their
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 81
successors.” Employee F concurred, “The previous leadership has left a legacy of bitterness with
the employees that remain here.” Employees A, C, and E reported that the employee motivation
problem in CLNP is a serious issue and agreed that, “CLNP is the worst park I have ever worked
at.” Employee E summed it up: “I dread coming to work.”
Summary of the Motivation Data
Qualitative data for this section was collected by observation of the EVS workshops,
document analysis of CLNP employee action plans, and seven individual interviews. By
triangulating the qualitative data collected, the main motivation performance gap was
discovered. The main root cause of the motivation gap was that employees needed to feel
respected in CLNP. In addition, employees reported they wanted to work in an organizational
environment where everyone demonstrated reciprocal accountability. CLNP employees from
both EVS workshops ranked the ‘Effective Leadership-Leader’ category as the most salient
category on the 2012 FEVS. Triangulated from the EVS workshops, document analysis of CLNP
employee action plans, and individual interviews, CLNP employees’ need to feel respected
effectively validated Item #61 in the ‘Effective Leadership-Leader’ category as the main
assumed cause of the motivation performance gap. The proposed solutions for the motivation
performance gap are discussed in Chapter 5.
Findings for Organization Causes
Employees need more resources, want to feel a greater sense of motivation and
commitment, and want to see higher standards of honesty and integrity. As mentioned in Chapter
3, many times organizational issues are the main cause of performance gaps and often lead to
additional knowledge and motivation gaps (Rueda, 2011). Problems such as inadequate resource
levels, inadequate facilities, missing tools, etc. can delay or prevent productive work. According
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 82
to Clark and Estes (2008), an organizational barrier is usually responsible when knowledge and
motivation can be ruled out.
The following qualitative findings from the observations of the EVS workshops,
document analysis of CLNP employee action plans, and individual interviews in the next section
build upon on Item #9 in the ‘Work/Life Balance Category’ as well as Items #53 and #54 in the
‘Effective Leadership-Leader’ category in the 2012 FEVS because these items focus on
organizational issues impeding CLNP employees.
Observations of EVS Workshops
Even though CLNP employees did not rank the ‘Work/Life Balance Category’ on the
2012 FEVS more important than the ‘Effective Leadership-Leader’ category, Item #9 in the
‘Work/Life Balance Category’ was given much discussion in both EVS workshops. There were
three items in this category. Item #9 specifically pertained to a lack of organizational resources.
Again, the CLNP score for Item #9 on the 2012 FEVS was 6% positive, while the median NPS
score was 51% (refer to Appendix B).
In the ‘Effective Leadership-Leader’ category on the 2012 FEVS, Items #53 and #54
specifically pertained to organizational issues involving perceptions of motivation, commitment,
honesty, and integrity. Again, the CLNP scores for Items #53 and #54 on the 2012 FEVS were
both 24%, while the median NPS score was 38% (refer to Appendix B). Of the 47 items related
to organizational issues on the 2012 FEVS, Items #9, #53, and #54 most pertained to the
employee organization performance gap.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), the third of the three main causes of performance
gaps are lack organizational barriers that may impede and obstruct the work environment.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 83
Repeatedly cited by employees, the main root causes of the organizational gap were budgetary
constraints and concerns about motivation, commitment, honesty, and integrity in CLNP.
In terms of budgetary constraints, multiple CLNP employees in both EVS workshops
reported that conditions in CLNP were worsening due to a shrinking budget from the Department
of the Interior and Congress. An employee in the second EVS workshop observed, “This park is
being held back by external forces such as regional and WASO (Washington Office).” One
group in the first EVS workshop noted: “The infrastructure of this park is falling apart.
Electronics, wiring, air conditioning systems, and walkways are all in disrepair. It will cost more
money in employee injuries, sick leave, and visitor lawsuits if they become safety issues.” An
employee in the first EVS workshop reported, “The budget is bad. Big, urgent items such as
boats and vehicles have to be ignored.” Another employee in the second EVS workshop agreed:
“They cut our budget beyond the bone. We can’t fix all the boats for all the divisions. They have
to pick and choose which ones get maintained and which ones don’t.” One employee in the
second EVS workshop noted, “We’re very passionate of what we do, but we just don’t have the
resources.” At the conclusion of the first EVS workshop, the CLNP superintendent was invited
into the room to hear employees’ concerns. The superintendent explained to the staff that CLNP
was not alone: “The local economies in the surrounding communities are suffering too. It’s no
longer about doing more with less, but about going forward with what you got. “ One employee
rebutted: “We can understand that but too much competition for resources between the divisions
breeds disaster.”
In terms of employee concerns about motivation, commitment, honesty, and integrity in
CLNP, an employee in the second EVS workshop suggested that, “If there was more money, the
NPS should send everyone to more effective leadership development training to learn how to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 84
better encourage teamwork, ethics, and professionalism.” A senior employee in the first EVS
workshop commented that employees used to be able to attend more training programs in the
past but access has decreased in recent years due to budget cuts.
Document Analysis (Employee Action Plans)
Examination of the employee action plans substantiated the root causes cited by
employees in the EVS workshops. The root causes were linked to CLNP employees’ perceptions
about organizational issue. The root causes were budgetary constraints and employee concerns
about motivation, commitment, honesty, and integrity. Conducting a qualitative content analysis
(Merriam, 2009), the issues CLNP employees reported in the EVS workshops to improve
employee satisfaction such as improving funding and access to additional training appeared in
three of the seven CLNP employee action plans. The appearance of the issues of ‘improving
funding’ and ‘additional training’ in three of the seven CLNP employee action plans implied that
employees believe the need for sufficient resources and their concerns about motivation,
commitment, honesty, and integrity in CLNP act as organizational barriers to effectively perform
their jobs.
Individual Interviews
After the EVS workshops and document analysis of employee action plans revealed that
the main root causes were the need for sufficient resources and employee concerns about
motivation, commitment, honesty, and integrity in CLNP, further validation of this assumed
cause was conducted via seven individual interviews. The interviews consisted of seven open-
ended questions (see Appendix D for the interview protocol). Question #6 of the interview
protocol asked: “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?” When this investigator
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 85
asked question #6 to the interview participants, they were specifically asked to provide examples
about the need for sufficient resources and employee concerns about motivation, commitment,
honesty, and integrity in CLNP.
In terms of the lack of sufficient resources, Employee A clarified the assessment one
group in the first EVS workshop made about the CLNP’s ailing infrastructure:
The environment and the weather play huge roles in terms of maintenance of things
around here. The constant humidity causes mold in the air vents, electrical wiring, and all
electronics needing constant monitoring and repair — also breathing in this stuff can’t be
healthy. Unfortunately, I know it would cost a lot to fix the problem. All we can do it
keep the mold at bay.
Employee A also agreed with the perception that competition between divisions causes
problems: “Money is the root of all evil. People are fighting over a smaller and smaller piece of
the pie.” Employee C suggested that funding might improve if influential officials in the Federal
Government and the NPS could see the situation in CLNP firsthand: “Congress and Director
Jarvis have no idea what is really happening in the field. WASO needs to reach out to its
employees. Then Jarvis needs to step up for the NPS and address these funding issues to
Congress.” Employee A has worked for several federal agencies and asserted, “NPS is the low
man on the totem pole. D.O.D. (Department of Defense) and Homeland (Department of
Homeland Security) get most of the money from the federal budget. We definitely need more
external donors.” Employee D agreed, “The park needs to look for more outside funding
opportunities. Divisions cannot prioritize projects because we are overworked and underfunded.
Leadership expects us to be miracle workers.”
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 86
In terms of employee concerns about motivation, commitment, honesty, and integrity in
CLNP, Employee A concurred that more leadership development training for everyone in order
to learn how to better encourage teamwork, ethics, and professionalism might help but only if it
was more contextual to real life situations: “I have gone to many NPS leadership development
courses as well as Federal Government training programs. Most classes are way too generalized
and have no realistic application.”
Summary of the Organization Data
Qualitative data for this section was collected by observation of the EVS workshops,
document analysis of CLNP employee action plans, and seven individual interviews. By
triangulating the qualitative data collected, the main organizational performance gap was
discovered. The main root causes of the organizational gap were: (a) employees’ concerns over
the decreasing park budget, (b) employees’ needs to feel a greater sense of motivation and
commitment and, (c) employees’ needs to see higher standards of honesty and integrity in CLNP.
Triangulated from the EVS workshops, document analysis of CLNP employee action plans, and
individual interviews, these employee concerns and needs effectively validated Item #9 in the
‘Work/Life Balance Category’ and Items #53 and #54 in the ‘Effective Leadership-Leader’
category as the main assumed causes of the organizational performance gap for CLNP
employees. The proposed solutions for the organizational performance gap are discussed in
Chapter 5.
Summary
In this case study, qualitative data revealed the main root causes of the knowledge/skills,
motivation, and organizational performance gaps by CLNP employees. These causes were
corroborated, triangulated, and validated via observation of the EVS workshops held in CLNP,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 87
document analysis of the CLNP employee action plans, and individual CLNP employee
interviews. The root cause of the knowledge/skills performance gap was that employees wanted
more information on the outcomes of park projects in terms of who, what, where, when, why,
and how park decisions were made effectively validating Item #64 on the 2012 FEVS. The root
cause of the motivation performance gap was that employees needed to feel respected in CLNP
effectively validating Item #61. The root causes of the organizational performance gap were
employees’ concerns over the decreasing park budget and employees’ needs to feel a greater
sense of motivation and commitment and see higher standards of honesty and integrity in CLNP
effectively validating Items #9, #53, and #54 (see Table 5). Alternative, cost-effective, practical,
and evidence-based solutions for the CLNP employee knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational performance gaps will be proposed in the next chapter.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 88
Table 5
Prioritized Assumed Causes
Possible Causes
Need for
observable
behaviors in
CLNP from the
literature Assessed by:
2012
FEVS
positive
score Validated?
Knowledge/skills =
Employees want more
information on the outcomes
CLNP projects (based on
Item #64, 2012 FEVS).
Communication 1) 2012 FEVS
2) EVS Workshops
3) CLNP Employee
Action Plans
4) Individual
Interviews
12% Yes
Motivation=Employees want
to feel trusted and respected
(based on Item #61, 2012
FEVS).
Accountability 1) 2012 FEVS
2) EVS Workshops
3) CLNP Employee
Action Plans
4) Individual
Interviews
29% Yes
Organizational=
1) Employees believe they
need more resources (for
example, people,
materials, budget) to get
their jobs done (based on
Item #9, 2012 FEVS).
2) Employees want to feel a
greater sense of
motivation and
commitment in the
workplace (based on
Item #53, 2012 FEVS).
3) Employees want to see
higher standards of
honesty and integrity
(based on Item #54, 2012
FEVS).
Leadership 1) 2012 FEVS
2) EVS Workshops
3) CLNP Employee
Action Plans
4) Individual
Interviews
1) 6%
2) 23%
3) 23%
Yes
Note. Adapted from Rueda (2011).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 89
CHAPTER 5
SOLUTIONS
The purpose of this case study was to understand what stakeholders in Casa Linda
National Park (CLNP) point to as the assumed causes of knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational performance gaps leading to low employee satisfaction. These assumed causes
were identified, corroborated, triangulated, and validated via observation of the EVS workshops
held in CLNP, document analysis of the CLNP employee action plans, and individual CLNP
employee interviews. This chapter lists and prioritizes the assumed causes revealed in Chapter 4
and presents possible solutions to assist CLNP leadership close the performance gaps and
increase employee satisfaction. This chapter answers the second study question: What are the
recommended solutions to address these assumed causes?
Validated Causes Selection and Rationale
The causes of low CLNP employee satisfaction that received the strongest validation
pertained to employees’ needs for increased open communication, reciprocal accountability,
more park resources, and access to leadership development training to address motivation,
commitment, honesty, and integrity issues (see Table 5). In terms of the knowledge/skills gap,
employees wanted to know more about the park decision-making process, especially the
outcomes of decisions in terms of who, what, where, when, why and how decisions were made.
In terms of the motivation gap, employees wanted to feel respected and move away from the
“status quo” which they believe stemmed in part from the previous superintendent’s inaction to
hold some people accountable for workplace violations. In terms of the organizational gap,
employees reported that they needed more sufficient resources because they perceived that the
decreasing CLNP budget affected day-to-day operations in the park. Employees were concerned
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 90
that prioritization of park projects was difficult and critical park infrastructure and assets were
being neglected. In addition, employees also wanted to feel a greater sense of motivation and
commitment and see higher standards of honesty and integrity in CLNP.
The aforementioned assumed causes were given the highest priority for recommending
solutions because they were the most validated in terms of the observations of the EVS
workshops, document analysis of the 2012 FEVS and CLNP employee action plans, and
individual employee interviews.
Recommended Solutions Selection and Rationale
In this chapter, this investigator considered three criteria for solutions: (a) employee-
focused, (b) micro-level, and (c) creatively-generated. All solutions, however, were research-
based. According to the National Parks Second Century Commission Report (NPSCC, 2008),
committee members suggested that it was imperative for the NPS to win “the hearts and minds”
of all stakeholders in order for the NPS to thrive and succeed into the 21st century (p. 32). In A
Call to Action (NPS, 2012), action #39 called for solidifying improved workforce commitment.
Any and all strategies to increase employee satisfaction should be employee-centric and focus on
the needs of the employees. As discussed in Chapter 2, prioritizing employees’ needs not only
increases organizational effectiveness and productivity, but also employee satisfaction (Conley,
2007; Hsieh, 2010; Jenkins, 2009; Maslow, 1954; Waterman, 1994).
Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that conducting cost-benefit analyses may be necessary
before attempting to close performance gaps. In this chapter, most solutions will focus on the
park level and will consider fiscally viable options that both CLNP leaders and employees can
realistically implement within their immediate environment. One group in the first EVS
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 91
workshop may have summed it up best: “These solutions only require pen, paper, and internet
access.”
In the above mentioned National Parks Second Century Commission Report (NPSCC,
2008), Commissioner Meg Wheatley observed that many of the solutions to address the needs of
the NPS already existed within the organization. In other words, the NPS already has the human
capital and capacity necessary to move forward and progress. Several solutions in this chapter
will reflect an example of that existing human capital in the form of CLNP employees’ creative,
practical, and cost-effective alternatives for addressing knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational performance gaps. These employee suggestions were then compared against
existing research and literature before recommendation for implementation in CLNP.
Solutions for Knowledge/Skills Causes
Employees want more information in terms of who, what, where, when, why, and how
park decisions were made. According to Clark and Estes (2008), during the gap analysis process,
it is important to determine whether employees know the basics about their performance goals in
terms of who what, where, when, why and how. Without clear information, employees may not
be committed to work. Withholding important information and poor communication, however,
are very common sources of knowledge problems in large organizations (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Luckily, information is the least expensive form of knowledge and skill development (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Drucker (1993) posited that knowledge is no longer a resource, but the resource
and has replaced land, labor, and capital as the classical factors of production. Organizations that
can identify and maximize their knowledge assets will succeed in the new global information
society (Rowley, 1999). The rapid sharing of knowledge will be a key management asset as the
NPS enters its second century of service (NPSCC, 2009). In addition, in the Learning &
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 92
Development Report to the National Leadership Council (USDOI, 2008), the Training and
Development Steering Committee challenged NPS employees to work together to strengthen
internal communication, collaboration, and accountability in order to meet the challenges of the
21st century and achieve success. In order to meet those goals, both CLNP employees and
leaders could engage in more frequent communication and information flow with each other
(Hargie et al., 2002; Johlke & Duhan, 2000).
As discussed in Chapter 4, the validated cause for the knowledge performance gap for
CLNP employees was that they wanted more information on the outcomes of park projects in
terms of who, what, where, when, why, and how park decisions were made. As reported by
multiple CLNP employees in the EVS workshops and individual interviews, CLNP projects were
meticulously planned in multiple division meetings in coordination with park leadership.
Employees reported that when the project was finally implemented, they perceived that much of
their input and opinions were left out. In essence, it appears that CLNP employees did not have
enough factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge. The proposed solution is
to have employees stay engaged and be fully informed in the decision-making process from the
beginning to the very end of park projects. In order to accomplish this solution, maintaining open
lines of communication with all stakeholders will be key.
Kotter (1996) suggested that high-performing organizations use any and all options of
communication available to keep all stakeholders internally connected. Social media such as
Facebook, Twitter, and Dropbox can be the digital conduit for employees and leaders to maintain
communication in real time (Eiferman, Anderson, & Szymanski, 2012). Operational security
concerns, time restraints, and fiscal limitations, however, may limit CLNP employees and
leaders to use existing communication infrastructure such as email, NPS Intranet, inter-office
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 93
memos, flyers, and bulletins. Either in meetings or interpersonally, face-to-face communication
would be the most preferable by employees and the most cost effective (Jo & Shim, 2005;
Hargie et al., 2002). As one employee reported in the second EVS workshop, “Talking doesn’t
cost anything.”
Factual
Employees want basic knowledge about the progress and outcomes of park projects.
CLNP employees reported that they wanted more information on the progress and outcomes of
park projects. Federal agencies who have maintained high or increased FEVS scores in the last
few years, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the
Surface Transportation Board all indicated that open communication was a major factor in their
employees’ satisfaction (Eiferman et al., 2012; Miller, 2010, 2011, 2012). According to the
Partnership for Public Service (2009), ideas for improvement can be attained from other high-
performing federal agencies. Through modeling and vicarious observations of other federal
agencies, CLNP employees and leaders can learn and apply from those agencies’ best practices
in terms of effective leader-subordinate communication (Bandura, 1997).
The proposed solution for the factual knowledge gap would be for CLNP employees and
leaders to engage in more open information sharing using the best communication practices of
other federal agencies as well as the multiple communication options listed earlier to keep each
other informed on the progress of park projects to include who will be involved in the final
decision, what will occur, and when and where it will happen (e.g., park level, regional, and
WASO).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 94
This proposed solution can be formally implemented in three successive steps: (a) the
creation of an employee “EVS committee” made up of one representative from each CLNP
division, (b) the inclusion of the employee EVS committee in open-door, weekly management
meetings with CLNP leadership, and (c) the creation of monthly town-hall type “all hands on
deck” meetings to be held in the CLNP visitor center and led by the CLNP superintendent. These
meetings will be attended by CLNP leadership, the employee EVS committee, and all other
CLNP employees. In both the weekly and monthly meetings, all pertinent information about the
progress of projects and other park matters can be discussed and shared in an open forum or in
focus groups. Informally on a daily basis or in real-time (as news comes in), both employees and
leaders can use the multiple communication options mentioned earlier to constantly keep each
other informed of pertinent park events.
Conceptual
Employees need to know why employee input and opinions appear to be left out of park
projects. Organizational justice is the degree to which employees perceive the outcomes they
receive and the ways they are treated within organizations are fair, equitable, and aligned with
expected ethical and moral standards (Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007). Perceived
organizational justice can help control or predict employees’ work related behaviors and
maintain high ethical and moral standards in the workplace. Enhanced organizational
commitment and trust for their supervisors and organizations are the results of organizational
justice (Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2006; Lind & Van den Bos, 2002; Thibaut & Walker,
1975). Organizational justice is divided into three types: (a) distributive justice, (b) procedural
justice, and (c) interactional justice. In the context of CLNP employees’ conceptual knowledge
gap, interactional justice, specifically informational justice, has the most applicability. According
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 95
to Bies and Moag (1986), interactional justice describes leaders’ behaviors during an
organization’s decision-making process. Informational justice is concerned with the quality of
information employees receive from communications with their managers and supervisors
(Greenberg, 1993). For informational justice, employees will readily accept negative outcomes
and perceive them as fair as long as clear and complete explanations are given (Bies & Shapiro
(1987). Wooten and Cobb (1999) suggested that explanations of why and how certain
organizational decisions are made can minimize employee negativity and backlash. In Federal
Employee Engagement: The Motivating Potential of Job Characteristics and Rewards (U.S.
Merit Systems Protection Board, 2012), the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board suggested that
candor, honesty, and transparency are keys to maintaining employee motivation. Cho and Sai’s
(2013) comprehensive study of 212,223 federal employees from the 2008 FEVS confirmed the
importance of informational justice and communication in the federal workplace.
The proposed solution for the conceptual knowledge gap would be for CLNP employees
and leaders to maintain open lines of communication to keep employees informed about the
degree to which their input and opinions will or will not be included in the final implementation
of park projects. In addition, it is important to communicate the reasons why certain aspects of
employee input will or will not be included so that employees can perceive a sense of
informational justice. Just as in the solution for the factual knowledge gap, the solution for the
conceptual knowledge gap can be formally implemented into the proposed weekly employee
EVS committee/management meetings, monthly “all hands on deck” meetings, and informally
on a daily basis or in “real time” (as news comes in).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 96
Procedural
Employees need to know the proper procedures on park decisions. According to Runte
(1979), America’s National Parks were under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army prior to the
creation of the NPS in 1916. The U.S. Army utilizes a highly rigid and bureaucratic command
and control model. Prototypical of a federal executive agency, the NPS uses a similar
bureaucratic command and control model. This model uses a system of policies, procedures,
rules, and regulations that govern all circumstances and are enforced predictably and uniformly.
The bureaucratic model minimizes employee choice and assumes that they will operate most
efficiently in a routine and stable environment (Crawford & Strohkirch, 2002). As opposed to a
meaningful and knowledgeable participant in the process, the employee is viewed as a resource
to be directed and maximized (Nyhan, 2000). Supervisor-employee relationships are based on
authority and control (Weber, 1964). Carnevale (1995) asserted that supervisors will quickly
return to the authoritative model when conflicts arise between employees and management.
Nyhan (2000) observed that bureaucratic models are often closed systems that emphasize secrecy
as a virtue and rigid compliance and directives as determinants of control and productivity. In a
bureaucratic command and control environment, the purpose of knowledge management is to
build reports on efficiency and profitability based on relevant data from the workforce and
information collected by management (see Table 6). Knowledge, information, and data is usually
restrictive and flows top-down from supervisors to employees (Blackburn & Rosen, 1993).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 97
Table 6
Knowledge in a Traditional Hierarchical Organization
Purpose of Knowledge 1) Promote corporate profitability.
2) Support the authority of management.
3) Minimize human error.
Role of Employees in
Knowledge Management
1) Passive reception of directions and policy.
2) Minimal responsibility for collection of data.
3) Production is central element of employee worth,
information plays a tangential role.
Role of Leaders in
Knowledge Management
1) Policies created, implemented, and enforced from the top.
2) Ultimate responsibility for collection of data.
3) Control distribution of knowledge.
Note. Adapted from Crawford and Strohkirch (2002).
Folger and Konovsky (1989) described procedural justice as the fairness in which the
decision-making process is conducted. Procedural justice focuses on the process from what was
decided to how the decision was made. Procedural justice theory is concerned with the means by
which allocation decisions are made and judgments about the process (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut
& Walker, 1975). Leventhal’s (1980) model of procedural justice has six criteria that procedures
should meet if they are to be perceived as fair. Procedures should: (a) consistently be applied
across people and time, (b) be free from bias, (c) ensure that accurate information is collected
and used in making decisions, (d) have some mechanism to correct flawed or inaccurate
decisions, (e) conform to standards of ethics or morality, and (f) ensure the opinions of various
groups affected by the decision have been taken into account.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 98
In Kim’s (2002) study of 1,576 Clark County, Nevada employees, respondents reported
the importance of public sector leaders’ commitment to change from traditional command and
control hierarchies to organizational cultures that emphasized more teamwork, stakeholder
collaboration and communication, and employee involvement in decision-making processes.
The proposed solution for the procedural knowledge/skills gap would be for CLNP
employees and leaders to keep each other informed on how final decisions will be made. This
way, employees may perceive a better sense of procedural justice when they observe visible
signs of 360 degree information sharing instead of traditional top-down communication common
in traditional command and control hierarchies. Just as in the solutions for the factual and
conceptual knowledge gaps, the solution for the procedural knowledge gap can be formally
implemented into the proposed weekly employee EVS committee/management meetings,
monthly “all hands on deck” meetings, and informally on a daily basis or in “real time” (as news
comes in).
Metacognitive
Employees need to see the ‘big picture’ of the decision-making process. If the acquisition
of knowledge is an evolutionary process, then attaining metacognitive knowledge may be the end
result. Mayer (2011) posited that self-regulated learners achieve metacognitive knowledge when
equipped with sufficient factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge. Self-regulated learners
are able to discern and apply metacognitive knowledge in order to see the ‘big picture’ of things
(Rueda, 2011). As mentioned in Chapter 4, one senior employee with acting division chief
experience in the second EVS workshop reported that having experience as both an employee
and supervisor allows individuals to see the decision making process from a different point of
view. That employee, as well as Employee C, suggested that all park decisions must be
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 99
considered with a long-term perspective. Strategic planning is defined as a systematic process for
leading the future direction of an organization in terms of the demands of its stakeholders and its
environment. Strategic planning includes: (a) issue management, (b) implementation of strategic
actions, (c) identification of agency stakeholders, (d) analysis of agency strengths and
weaknesses, and (e) long term strategy formulation (Berry & Wechsler, 1995). Berman and West
(1998) observed that strategic planning has been the most widely implemented strategy to
improve productivity in all levels of government. Kim’s (2002) previously mentioned study
found that government agencies that utilize strategic planning principles in their work units were
more likely to have increased organizational effectiveness and employee satisfaction. Daniels
and Bailey (1999) indicated that strategic planning allows employees to become key stakeholders
and influence their work organizations in positive ways.
The proposed solution for the metacognitive knowledge gap builds upon the solutions
recommended to address the factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge gaps. By keeping
each other constantly informed of the progress of park projects via weekly and monthly
meetings, as well as in real time, both employees and leaders may observe that all stakeholders’
input and contributions are highly valued via a strategic planning context. By keeping employees
feeling fully engaged in the decision making process by arming them with constant information
in terms of who, what, where, when, why, and how park decisions are made, employees may
finally gain enough metacognitive knowledge to see the overall ‘big picture’ of the CLNP
decision-making process.
Solutions for Motivation Causes
Employees want to feel respected. According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation gets
employees going, keeps employees moving, and tells employees how much effort to spend on
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 100
work tasks. Many performance gaps are actually caused by lack of motivation, not a lack of
knowledge and skills. Intelligent, experienced employees who lack motivation do not have the
energy, persistence, and direction to accomplish much at work. Motivation issues are not one-
dimensional and can be caused by many things. A working knowledge of basic motivation
principles and constructs can be a useful tool in the diagnosis and resolution of many motivation
issues. Rueda (2011) pointed out that motivation solutions cannot be addressed by solutions
designed for knowledge gaps. Specifically, a motivation solution can be described as an
intervention that increases efforts to resolve a validated problem in an attempt to close
performance gaps.
As discussed in Chapter 4, the validated cause for the motivation performance gap for
CLNP employees was that they needed to feel more respected in CLNP. Employees reported
they wanted to work in an organizational environment where everyone demonstrated more
reciprocal accountability. As reported by multiple CLNP employees in the EVS workshops and
individual interviews, inaction by the previous park superintendent to hold certain people
accountable for misconduct created an atmosphere where other employees perceived there was a
general lack of trust, respect, teamwork, and cooperation. Several employees reported that even
though many “problem” people had left CLNP, the perception of the status quo continued.
Accountability Revisited
As mentioned in Chapter 2, accountability is described as employees’ perceptions
pertaining to the degree they may be required to justify their actions at work to one person or
people in positions of authority (Tetlock, 1985; Wood & Winston, 2005, as cited by Breaux et
al., 2008). Specifically, reciprocal accountability is a two-way process where leaders hold
themselves accountable first by creating a work environment where employees can be successful
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 101
before holding employees accountable for performance expectations (Elmore, 2002). Clark and
Estes (2008) suggested that before real organizational change can happen, the proper
organizational culture must first exist. As previously mentioned, the Training and Development
Steering Committee in the Learning & Development Report to the National Leadership Council
(USDOI, 2008) challenged NPS employees to work together to strengthen internal
communication, collaboration, and accountability in order to meet the challenges of the 21st
century and achieve success. In order to meet those goals, the above-mentioned status quo in
CLNP should be replaced by an organizational culture of reciprocal accountability. In an
organizational culture of reciprocal accountability, employees perceive conditions as more
equitable and are more trusting of their leaders. Employees are also more satisfied, more
committed, and perform better individually and collaboratively (Lee & Jimenez, 2011;
Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006).
Bandura (1997) argued that perceptions of fairness and honesty are major motivational
issues. Even the most mature employees will not work as hard if they constantly experience
unfair and dishonest behavior. Employees who perceived that they were treated fairly by their
company were likely to hold more commitment, trust, increased productivity, and high levels of
job satisfaction than those employees who perceived that they were treated unfairly (Kim, 2009;
Nyhan, 2000). According to Clark and Estes (2008), trust is integral in employees’ motivation
and de-motivation. Trust is lost when work conditions are perceived as dishonest, hypocritical,
and unfair. Once lost, trust is very difficult to regain. In the case of CLNP, an atmosphere of
mutual trust may have to be re-established as a precursor to an organizational culture of
reciprocal accountability.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 102
Accountability Solutions
In an organizational setting, trust is defined as one’s willingness to be vulnerable to a
leader’s, subordinate’s, or peer’s actions (Sweeney, Thompson, & Blanton, 2009). Trust
represents the level of confidence a person has in another to act in a predictable, ethical, and fair
manner (Luhmann, 1979). Trust develops from interpersonal relationships between managers
and employees based on the mutual degree of security, confidence, and reliability (Rempel,
Holmes, & Zanna, 1985). Sweeney et al. (2009) posited that trust is a critical mechanism in all
human relationships. Lencioni (2002) reported that when there is an absence of trust, employees
tend to:
(a) conceal their weaknesses and mistakes from one another, (b) hesitate to ask for help
or provide constructive feedback, (c) hesitate to offer help outside their own areas of
responsibility, (d) jump to conclusions about the intentions and aptitudes of others
without attempting to clarify them, (e) fail to recognize and tap into one another’s skills
and experiences, (f) waste time and energy managing their behaviors for effect, (g) hold
grudges, and (h) dread meetings and find reasons to avoid spending time together.
(p. 197)
In their study of 712 U.S. Army soldiers and sergeants, Sweeney et al. (2009) found that, when
evaluating their platoon lieutenants (junior leaders), soldiers and sergeants felt that mutual trust
was a prerequisite for reciprocal influence in leader-subordinate relationships. Beyond mere
compliance, Sweeney et al. (2009) observed that subordinates will accept influence from leaders
they trust and, in return, leaders will allow trusted subordinates to influence them. This study has
significance on a public sector organization with a traditional command and control hierarchy,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 103
such as seen in CLNP, because it demonstrates that it is imperative for mid-level leaders and
above to gain the trust of both lower and senior line employees.
Based on CLNP employees’ perceptions for a need for an organizational culture of
reciprocal accountability, the first proposed solution is for employees and park leaders to
collaborate to develop an atmosphere of mutual trust in order to move away from the “status
quo.” Sweeney et al.’s (2009) model for the development of trust can be utilized in this case.
Their model posits that the development of trust hinges upon three factors: (a) relationship,
(b) person, and (c) organization.
In the relationship factor, mutual trust develops through reciprocating cycles in which
leaders act to reduce subordinates’ fear of exploitation by demonstrating dependability and
showing that their relationship will be rewarding (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Leaders can earn the
perception of dependability by demonstrating interdependence, sharing common interests,
showing willingness to act out of concern for all, and willingly engaging in behavior that places
them in the position of risk, hardship, and vulnerability (Lencioni, 2002).
The person factor revolves around building leader credibility. By demonstrating
competence, character, and compassion, leaders can earn the perception of credibility. It is
imperative that leaders demonstrate that they have the ability and persistence to meet role
expectations, but at the same time, take care of subordinate needs in order to accomplish
organizational objectives. Taking care of subordinate needs is predicated upon Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs mentioned in Chapter 2 (Jenkins, 2009; Maslow, 1954).
In the organizational factor, organizational structures (such as a work environment that
encourages reciprocal accountability) set boundaries on leaders’ behavior (McKnight,
Cummings, & Chervany, 1998). As a result, subordinates have a sense of control, assurance, and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 104
predictability because they know that leaders are more likely to behave in a cooperative and
trustworthy manner (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. Model for the development of trust
Note. Adapted from Sweeney et al. (2009).
The proposed implementation plans for the knowledge solutions that were previously
discussed can be the key arena to gauge the progress of visible signs of mutual trust. In other
words, the perceptions of increased mutual trust between all CLNP stakeholders can be the
useful by-product of increased open communication and information sharing.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 105
Once an atmosphere of mutual trust is re-established, a unified effort by both employees
and leaders can enforce a new organizational attitude of strong transactional/transformational
principles. Multiple employees reported that the perception of the continued ‘status quo’ in
CLNP stemmed from the laissez-faire leadership style of the previous park superintendent.
Northouse (2010) described laissez-faire leadership as the absence of leadership. A laissez-faire
leader makes little effort to help followers satisfy the needs, gives no feedback, delays decisions,
and abdicates responsibility. In a study of 56 U.S. Marine Corps officers, Salter (1989) found
that officers with laissez-faire leadership styles were perceived as the least effective leaders by
subordinates. The second proposed solution is to build upon the newly created atmosphere of
mutual trust and enhance a new organizational attitude where reciprocal accountability is
expected upon everyone. Both employees and leaders can play integral roles in a renewed
internal system of checks and balances. Lencioni (2002) posited that peer pressure is sometimes
the best way to hold peers accountable for performance standards. Just as in team sports,
everyone must hold everyone else accountable. Once all stakeholders start reporting more
positive signs of reciprocal accountability behaviors in CLNP, both employees and leaders can
coach and mentor others on the principles of transformational leadership (Bandura, 1986).
According to Pulakos and O’Leary (2011), enforcement of any kind of new formal
accountability system cannot succeed without ongoing open communication, consistency, and
trust. Since it may be a considerable paradigm shift to some stakeholders, training, mentoring,
and coaching on the transformational change process may be needed (Brown & May, 2012).
Hannah, Avolio, Luthans and Harms (2008) suggested that transformational leadership abilities
can be developed through modeling or vicarious observations where peers watch other peers
with transformational leadership qualities and learn from them. Although not mentioned in
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 106
Chapter 4 because it was not strongly qualitatively validated, several groups in the EVS
workshops and two employees in the individual interviews (Employees A and F) reported that
their new park superintendent, some existing park leaders, and several of their peer employees
displayed many traits of transformational leadership. Even though the CNLP superintendent is
still relatively new to the park, those same employees observed that it was an encouraging
change from the previous superintendent. The current CNLP superintendent, some existing park
leaders, and peer employees, through transformational leadership, can be instrumental in the
coaching and mentoring of others.
Transformational leadership, however, must first be built upon a foundation of
transactional leadership. Kuhnert (1994) described the two main components of transactional
leadership: (a) Contingent Reward, and (b) Management-by-Exception. Contingent Reward is an
exchange process between peers and subordinates where subordinates’ efforts are exchanged for
specified rewards. Management-by-Exception involves negative reinforcement, negative
feedback, and corrective criticism. Management-by-Exception can take two forms: active and
passive. Active management-by-exception involves closely watching others for violations,
mistakes, or discrepancies and taking corrective action. Passive management-by-exception
leaders only react when problems arise or standards are not met (Northouse, 2010). In the case of
CLNP, peers may have to focus on the strategy and not necessarily on the person by adjusting an
individual’s beliefs about the importance of reciprocal accountability. This adjustment can be
accomplished by: (a) showing novelty and difficulty, (b) testing approaches, (c) validating
required approaches, (d) attributing mistakes to effort, (e) requesting new approaches,
(f) monitoring and documenting progress closely, and (g) giving constant feedback (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 107
Yammarino, Spangler, and Bass (1993) suggested transactional leadership can provide
the base for expected levels of performance. Furthermore, transformational leadership can then
be built upon that base resulting in extraordinary results. Discussions on CLNP stakeholders’
perceptions on visible signs of increased mutual trust, reciprocal accountability, and the coaching
and mentoring of both peer employees and park leaders in the principles of
transactional/transformational leadership can be part of the formal agendas in both the weekly
and monthly meetings proposed earlier in the knowledge solutions. Estimated costs in the
rebuilding of an atmosphere of mutual trust, creating an organizational culture of reciprocal
accountability, and the coaching/mentoring of transactional/transformational leadership
principles to all stakeholders would be minimal but return on value could be significant (Salmon,
2008).
Solutions for Organizational Causes
Employees need more resources, want to feel a greater sense of motivation and
commitment, and want to see higher standards of honesty and integrity. According to Rueda
(2011), organizational practices, policies, and structures can influence whether employees’
performance goals are met. Employees’ knowledge, skills, and motivation drive organizations. It
is critical for organizations to focus on employees and give them what they need to succeed
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Decreased NPS employee morale can be attributed to the increasingly
bureaucratic environment, declining budgets, staff losses, and centralization of critical
administrative functions (NPSCC, 2009).
As discussed in Chapter 4, one of the three validated causes for the organizational
performance gap for CLNP employees was that they needed more resources to effectively do
their jobs. As reported by multiple CLNP employees in the EVS workshops and individual
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 108
interviews, the declining park budget prevents maintenance and repair of critical park assets such
as boats, vehicles, electronics, wiring, air conditioning systems, and walkways. In addition,
divisions cannot prioritize projects due to lack of money. As a result, multiple CLNP employees
reported that competition for dwindling resources places divisions in competition with one
another jeopardizing teamwork and cooperation. Several CLNP employees suggested that CLNP
should find more outside funding opportunities and external donors to help alleviate the financial
pressure.
Fortwangler (2007) reported that congressional funding for National Parks have not kept
up with inflation resulting in underfunding and understaffing. Deferred maintenance backlogs for
NPS parks are estimated at over $5 billion (U.S. General Accounting Office [USGAO], 2004).
Pitcaithley (2007) explained that a maintenance backlog was the funding required in the deferred
maintenance of archaeological sites and monuments, roads and trails, housing, water and
wastewater systems, visitor centers, and other administrative buildings. Pitcaithley (2007) also
reported that the average NPS park budget shortfall averaged 32%. To help bridge the financial
gap, private investors, philanthropy, and corporate and business sponsorship in the form of
monetary donations, volunteer hours, and in-kind gifts have increased in the last 30 years
(Fortwangler, 2007). According to the U.S. General Accounting Office (2003), these private park
support groups donated about $70 million from 1997 to 2001. Fortwangler (2007) asserted that
the fiscal situation in some parks were so dire that they were forced to use private support and
funds to cover basic operating expenses. Critics reported there was concern about the increased
and disproportionate influence by private park support groups on the NPS system (Wade, 2005).
Funds from private sources are inconsistent and private donors often stipulate how donations are
used, which may differ from park priorities if they do not match donor interests (USGAO, 2004).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 109
Nonetheless, recent NPS Directors have emphasized that these groups were a vital part of the
NPS organization and exemplified public-private partnerships and collaboration (Cherng &
Heaney, 2005).
Several employees reported in the individual interviews that CLNP has several existing
relationships with private park support groups and local academic institutions, however, they
suggested that finding more external assistance was needed. In the earlier mentioned Capacity
Committee Report (NPSCC, 2009), Committee members posited that diverse partnerships were
essential to the future of the NPS. The Committee recommended that NPS leaders must have the
flexibility to participate in a wide variety of relationships with private citizens, local officials,
varying levels of government, surrounding jurisdictions, different communities and cultures,
colleges and universities, and the public. The first proposed solution for the organizational
performance gap is for CLNP leaders to maintain and enhance existing relationships with current
private park support groups and local academic institutions. Private park support groups and
local academic institutions can provide philanthropic funding, donations, grants, and valuable
low cost administrative support, education/training, and distance learning options to park
employees (Self, McConnell, Schroeder, & Ryan, 2008). In addition, CLNP employees and
leaders can utilize a community policing approach to recruit more stakeholders and donors in the
surrounding communities. Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux (1990) described the community
policing model as a new paradigm from the traditional relationships between police departments,
emergency services, other municipal agencies, etc. and the local communities they serve. The
philosophy is that government entities should actively reach out to community residents in order
to work together in creative ways to address contemporary social problems such as neighborhood
decay, social disorder, and the perception of crime. Through community policing efforts,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 110
community residents are treated as stakeholders and are given greater participation in setting
police and other municipal agencies’ priorities enabling them to improve the overall quality of
life in their neighborhoods (Muraskin & Roberts, 2009). Common examples of community
policing programs include neighborhood watch programs, neighborhood board meetings, drug
abuse resistance education (DARE), and youth sports via a Police Activities League (PAL)
(Carter, 1995; Greene, 2000).
CLNP employees and leaders can collaborate to build community partnerships and
engage local area residents in much of the same way by volunteering to become a host,
participant, and fellow stakeholder in local police, fire, and other municipal agencies’
neighborhood watch programs, DARE programs, and PAL programs. In terms of
implementation, CLNP employees and leaders can establish lines of communication with local
area police and fire chiefs, school principals, city council members, neighborhood board
associations, etc. Being involved in these type of partnerships can have a mutually beneficial
relationship by allowing CLNP a low-cost option of being more visible in the surrounding
communities and, in turn, allowing local area residents to learn more about their neighborhood
national park. News of progress in the recruitment of additional external donors can also be a
formal agenda in the earlier mentioned weekly employee EVS committee/management meetings
and monthly “all hands on deck” meetings. Informally, just as in news of the progress of park
projects, pertinent news on external donors can also be shared by CLNP employees and leaders
on a daily basis or in real time using digital media, face-to-face, or other traditional means of
organizational communication.
The second and third validated causes for the organizational performance gap for CLNP
employees were their needs to feel a greater sense of motivation and commitment and see higher
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 111
standards of honesty and integrity in CLNP. As reported by multiple CLNP employees in the
EVS workshops and individual interviews, some employees felt that access to more effective and
real-world leadership development training in workplace issues such as learning how to
encourage better teamwork, ethics, and professionalism would be beneficial to all stakeholders in
CLNP.
The second proposed solution for the organizational performance gap is for all CLNP
employees and leaders to have access to more effective professional development and leadership
training provided by the NPS. In Self et al.’s (2008) previously mentioned research of current
NPS leadership development programs, one participant commented that she had difficulties as a
leader because she received little training when she was promoted to a supervisor position. A
serious commitment and larger investment by the NPS leadership into leadership development
for all the organization’s employees and leaders is essential because effective leadership leads to
increased organizational creativity, higher work environment quality, and increased employee
morale and motivation (NPSCC, 2009). According to Miller (2010), strong leadership and
increased communication contributed to the recently increased FEVS scores of other federal
agencies such as the FCC, the Smithsonian Institute, the General Services Administration, and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Avenues of access to more training opportunities for CLNP
employees and leaders could include attendance in “train the trainer” type programs, where one
or several representatives from CLNP would attend an NPS sponsored training program and
return to CLNP to teach peers. Less time and cost consuming programs could also include long
distance options such as computer training programs via Learning Management Systems
software utilizing the current NPS intranet system or even attending courses at local area
academic and municipal institutions such as colleges, universities, police, and fire academies.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 112
In the previously mentioned Capacity Committee Report (NPSCC, 2009), Committee
members called the NPS a ‘learning organization’ for the 21st century. According to Senge
(1990), a learning organization exhibits five characteristics: (a) systems thinking, (b) personal
mastery, (c) mental models, (d) a shared vision, and (e) team learning. If the NPS is to truly
evolve into a learning organization, three organizational reforms need to occur: (a) continued and
further evaluation of leadership programs, (b) curriculum reform to make leadership programs
more holistic, and (c) consolidation of the existing best practices of NPS leadership programs
into a comprehensive and service-wide national leadership development program.
First, Self et al.’s (2008) previously mentioned research attempted to identify the best
practices in the numerous leadership development programs currently offered by the NPS. Their
research found that many programs were too decentralized and widespread. Many quality
programs were only offered in certain parks and regions and redundancies between programs
existed. Their research also found that proper outcome-based evaluation of programs was rare.
Program success was most often measured only on learners’ levels of satisfaction with the course
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). The lack of robust evaluation fails to maximize the potential
of some promising leadership programs and limits the opportunities for improvement in order to
better meet participant needs.
Second, in Chapter 4, Employee A reported that many current NPS leadership
development programs were too generalized and did not have application to real life situations.
Self et al.’s (2008) research corroborated Employee A’s observation when it found that the
majority of existing NPS leadership development programs were too technical or occupational
specific and not holistic in nature. In terms of the second proposed solution for the organizational
performance gap, any comprehensive agency-wide leadership development program may want to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 113
teach effective leadership skills to all employees and leaders such as managing different
personalities, developing teamwork, and the like. In addition, any new leadership development
program may want to include the knowledge and motivation solutions presented earlier in this
chapter as well (for example, increased and open leader-subordinate communication, building
trust, and transactional/transformational leadership principles).
Third, Self et al.’s (2008) research recommended that many of the current NPS leadership
development programs would benefit into being developed for agency-wide application. In the
earlier mentioned Learning & Development Report to the National Leadership Council (USDOI,
2008), NPS Director Mary Bomar called for the reformulation of the scattered leadership
programs into a national leadership development program aimed to develop supervisory and
leadership competencies through a systematic and coherent curriculum of courses. Committee
members in the Capacity Committee Report (NPSCC, 2009) also recommended that the NPS
establish a central entity to guide leadership development and management reforms.
Implementation
The recommended solutions to address all the validated causes of the knowledge/skills,
motivation, and organizational CLNP employee performance gaps are not mutually exclusive,
but are all interrelated. In other words, visible evidence of one gap being closed will more than
likely affect the progress of the closing of other performance gaps. For example, when
employees start receiving more pertinent factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge about
the progress of CLNP decisions on park projects and start seeing the importance of their roles in
the strategic planning in the “bigger picture” of the park (metacognitive), their motivation levels
may increase because they will see visible signs of positive organizational change through
mutual trust and reciprocal accountability. In addition, if increased open communication and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 114
reciprocal accountability behaviors are continuously observed, additional organizational
resources can be found because park leaders and employees will collaborate on networking
efforts with the surrounding communities to find more external donors. Finally, employees may
attribute positive organizational change to all stakeholders finally receiving realistic, contextual,
and effective professional development leadership training from the NPS.
A key piece to the implementation of the knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational performance gap solutions puzzle may be the recommendations for the creation of
an employee EVS committee, inclusion of the employee EVS committee in weekly management
team meetings, participation of all employees and park leaders in monthly “all hands on deck”
town hall meetings, and informal daily communication by all CLNP stakeholders involving the
progress of park projects, recruitment of additional external donors, and all other important park
news.
If organizational change actions are visible, tangible, dedicated, and implemented over
time, increases in employee satisfaction in CLNP may be slow but eventually will noticeably
increase. One or two heroic figures in CLNP cannot lead the way, however. For organizational
change to be sustained, all stakeholders in CLNP must play a role. In other words, all park
leaders and park employees must work together as one unit. As stated earlier, everyone must
hold everyone else accountable. In the case of CLNP, Kotter’s (1996) eight stage process of
implementing organizational change may be applied:
(a) establishing a sense of urgency, (b) creating a guiding coalition, (c) developing a
vision and strategy, (d) communicating change vision, (e) empowering broad-based
action, (f) generating short-term wins, (g) consolidating gains and producing more
change, and (h) anchoring new approaches in the culture. (p. 21)
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 115
In order to gain needed cooperation, establishing a sense of urgency is crucial.
Momentum for change will quickly wane if others don’t feel the same sense of needed change.
As reported in Chapter 4, many CLNP stakeholders may already have this sense of urgency,
however, belief for positive change will be needed by everyone in CLNP.
A strong guiding coalition is essential in the early stages of any effort to reengineer or
restructure major organizational change. According to Kotter (1996), people on a strong guiding
coalition must have: (a) a position of some influence, (b) expertise, (c) credibility, and (d) proven
leadership abilities. In addition, a high degree of trust and a shared vision of a common goal are
needed on the coalition. In the case of CLNP, a strong guiding coalition can be made up of the
existing management team (division chiefs, deputy superintendent, and the park superintendent)
and the proposed employee ‘EVS committee’ made up of one representative employee from each
division. West (2008) observed that effective organizational change starts from the grassroots
level, therefore, it is vital to include park employees on the guiding coalition because they can
fill vital gaps in technical expertise, credibility based on seniority, and first-hand information of
situations in the field.
In terms of developing a shared vision and strategy, clarity of direction of change is
important because it motivates action that is not normally in people’s short term self-interests. A
good vision and strategy aligns individuals and gives people an appealing cause for which to
rally behind. A good vision and strategy is simple, flexible, easily communicable, and can be
explained in five minutes. The guiding coalition plays an integral part in creating a strong vision
and strategy. In the case of CLNP, it is essential that the management team and the EVS
employee committee work together to implement the recommended solutions presented earlier to
increase employee satisfaction.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 116
When it comes to communicating the change vision, repetitive information sharing by all
stakeholders on all available mediums of communication is important. When the same message
comes from multiple directions, it stands a better chance of being heard and remembered.
Behavior is also a powerful way to communicate a new direction. According to Kotter (1996),
talk is cheap but action is not, therefore, guiding coalition members must walk the talk.
Inconsistent behavior on the part of key players has a detrimental effect on the communication of
a change vision.
Empowering employees for broad-based action include removing structural barriers and
obstacles, including employees in the decision-making process, and aligning systems to the
vision. In the case of CLNP, finding creative ways to get additional funding such as soliciting
more external donors is an example of bypassing bureaucratic obstacles. Realigning current
communication practices between leaders and subordinates to make employees feel more
involved in the decision-making process (sharing factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge)
is another example of empowering employees for broad-based action.
The role of short-term wins: (a) provides evidence that sacrifices are worth it, (b) rewards
change agents and stakeholders with positive feedback and motivation, (c) helps fine-tune vision
and strategies, (d) undermines critics, cynics, and naysayers, (e) keeps important stakeholders on
the guiding coalition involved, and (f) builds momentum toward the final goal. According to
Kotter (1996), winning many small battles can win the war.
Consolidating gains and producing more change increases the ethos and faith of the
guiding coalition and motivates them to take on additional and more challenging projects.
Important and influential allies from all over the organization are also gained due to the visible
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 117
positive changes. Hock (2005) observed that individuals are inspired to join movements that are
bigger than themselves.
In the last stage, Kotter (1996) posited that organizational culture change occurs only
after: (a) people’s actions are altered, (b) the new behavior produces some group benefit, and
(c) individuals see the connection between new actions and improvement in performance.
Behaviors and attitudes typically change early in the transformational process. These alterations
slowly create changes in practices that increase organizational morale, effectiveness, and
productivity. Important positive changes only become anchored in the organizational culture at
the end of the change cycle and not in the beginning. In other words, any solutions for
implementation in CLNP will not be quick and short-term. Sustained organizational change in
CLNP will require dedication, commitment, and patience by all stakeholders.
The following section will describe how the proposed solutions will be implemented in
CLNP. The solutions will be scaffolded into specific tasks that will be introduced and
implemented immediately and on a weekly and monthly basis. Table 7 summarizes the causes,
solutions, and implementation of the solutions to address the knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organization performance gaps. Table 8 summarizes the goals of CLNP, which includes all
stakeholders’ cascading goals. Tables 9, 10, and 11 summarize the performance goals, time
frame, and measurement for evaluation for the implementation of the proposed solutions.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 118
Table 7
Summary of Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the Solutions
Knowledge and Skills Motivation
Culture/ Context/
Capital/ Policy
Causes - Need for factual knowledge on
the final disposition of park
projects.
- Need for conceptual knowledge
on the reasons why employee
input was not included in the
final implementation of park
projects.
- Need for procedural knowledge
on how decisions are made.
- Need for factual, conceptual,
and procedural knowledge in
order to gain metacognitive
knowledge to see the ‘big
picture’ of the CLNP decision
making process.
- Need for an
environment where all
stakeholders
demonstrate reciprocal
accountability.
- Need for more
resources to effectively
do their jobs.
- Need for more access
to effective leadership
development training
for all employees and
leaders.
Solutions - Inform all stakeholders on the
progress of park projects.
- Maintain open lines of
communication to explain the
reasons why employee input will
or will not be included in the
final execution of park projects.
- Maintain open lines of
communication and wean away
from traditional command and
control communication practices
to explain how final decisions
are made.
- Keep all stakeholders informed
and keep everyone actively
engaged in the decision making
process to remind all
stakeholders that their input and
contributions are highly valued
via a strategic planning context.
- Develop mutual trust
in all stakeholders.
- Find additional
funding outside of the
NPS. In addition,
inform all stakeholders
on the progress of
recruitment of external
donors.
- NPS leadership
training should be more
realistic and contextual.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 119
Table 7, continued
Knowledge and Skills Motivation
Culture/ Context/
Capital/ Policy
Implementation - Use the best communication
practices of other federal
agencies and multiple
communication media so all
stakeholders have enough
information in terms of who,
what, where, when, why and
how park decisions are made.
- Create a culture of
reciprocal
accountability
reinforced by strong
transactional/
transformational
leadership principles
via coaching and
mentoring by
employees and leaders
with transformational
leadership traits in
weekly employee EVS
committee/
management and
monthly “all hands on
deck” town hall
meetings.
- Use a community
policing approach to
reach out to
surrounding
communities to solicit
more external donors
and inform all
stakeholders on the
progress of recruitment
of external donors.
- Evaluate and
consolidate the best
NPS leadership
practices and programs
into one comprehensive
program in one location
available to all leaders
and employees via in-
person or distance
learning options.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 120
Table 8
Summary of the Main and Cascading Goals of the Organization
Organizational Goal:
Increase CLNP employees’ positive ratings by 5 percent on the 2014 FEVS and by 15 percent on the
2016 FEVS.
Stakeholder 1 Goal: Leaders
All CLNP leaders will demonstrate
more open communication,
reciprocal accountability, and
collaborative leadership behaviors
in order to close employee
knowledge, motivation, and
organizational performance gaps.
Stakeholder 2 Goal:
Employees
All CLNP employees will
participate in Stakeholder 1
Cascading and Performance
Goals.
Stakeholder 3 Goal: NPS
The NPS will provide more
access to effective leadership
training and professional
development to all new and
current NPS employees and
leaders at all levels.
Stakeholder 1 Cascading Goal 1:
Using the best communication
practices of other federal agencies,
all CLNP leaders will constantly
share information with employees
in order to help employees gain
metacognitive knowledge about
the park decision-making process.
Stakeholder 1 Cascading Goal 2:
All CLNP leaders will collaborate
with employees to change the park
status quo by creating a culture of
reciprocal accountability based on
mutual trust.
Stakeholder 1 Cascading Goal 3:
Using a community policing
approach, all CLNP leaders will
collaborate with employees to
build more partnerships with other
stakeholders in the surrounding
communities in order to solicit
more external donors and become
more visible.
Stakeholder 2 Cascading
Goal 1:
Employees will form an
employee EVS committee
comprising of one employee
from every division. The
committee will participate in
weekly management meetings
with CLNP leadership. One
member from the EVS
committee will rotate as
acting secretary to record and
publish minutes.
Stakeholder 3 Cascading Goal
1:
The NPS will establish a central
institute to teach the best
leadership practices of a
comprehensive national
leadership development
program.
Stakeholder 3 Cascading Goal
2:
The NPS will maintain existing
relationships and build new ones
with academic institutions to
share scholarly knowledge on
science, conservation, and
leadership practices as well as to
utilize their infrastructure to
facilitate distance learning
options to remote NPS parks.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 121
Table 9
Summary of Performance Goals, Timeline, and Measurement of Performance Goals for
Stakeholder 1 (Leaders)
Stakeholder Performance Goal (PG) Goal Measure
PG #1 for Cascading Goal 1:
All CLNP leaders will share pertinent factual, conceptual, and
procedural knowledge about the progress of park projects, including
the end results in weekly EVS committee/management meetings,
monthly “all hands on deck” meetings (see below PGs #2 and 3 for
Cascading Goal 1), and in real-time (as news comes in) using all
communication options.
Implement: Immediately.
Evaluate: At the start and conclusions of both meetings. Leaders will
collaborate with employees to create and circulate an informal
electronic or printed survey on Survey Monkey to all participants.
Discussion of progress can also be done formally as agendas in both
meetings.
Employees’ knowledge gain
about the CLNP decision-
making process.
PG #2 for Cascading Goal 1:
All weekly management meetings will now include the employee
members of the EVS committee. All meetings will be open door.
Implement: Weekly.
Evaluate: At the start and conclusion of these meetings using the
informal survey listed above. Discussion of progress can also be done
formally as an agenda in these meetings.
Employees’ knowledge gain
about the CLNP decision-
making process
PG #3 for Cascading Goal 1:
The superintendent will lead monthly ‘all hands on deck’ town hall
meetings with all employees and park leaders in the CLNP visitor
center conference room (as staffing permits).
Implement: Monthly.
Evaluate: At the start and conclusion of these meetings using the
informal survey listed above. Discussion of progress can also be done
formally as an agenda in these meetings.
Employees’ knowledge gain
about the CLNP decision-
making process
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 122
Table 9, continued
Stakeholder Performance Goal (PG) Goal Measure
PG #1 for Cascading Goal 2:
In the weekly and monthly EVS committee/management and “all
hands on deck” meetings, CLNP employees and leaders will coach,
mentor, collaborate, and share transactional/transformational
leadership techniques on building trust and rapport with subordinates
and other peer leaders.
Implement: Weekly and monthly.
Evaluate: At the start and conclusions of both meetings using the
informal survey listed above. Discussion of progress can also be done
formally as agendas in these meetings.
Employees’ and peer leaders’
perceptions on the progress
toward a culture of reciprocal
accountability.
PG #1 for Cascading Goal 3:
All pertinent information on finding more external donors will be
shared with employees in real time, in the weekly EVS
committee/management meetings, and with everyone in the ‘all hands
on deck’ monthly meetings.
Implement: Immediately.
Evaluate: At the start and conclusions of both meetings using the
informal survey listed above. Discussion of progress can also be done
formally as agendas in both meetings.
Progress of current efforts.
Table 10
Summary of Performance Goals, Timeline, and Measurement of Performance Goals for
Stakeholder 2 (Employees)
Stakeholder Performance Goal (PG) Goal Measure
PG #1 for Cascading Goal 1:
All employees will participate in the ‘all hands on deck’ monthly meetings.
Implement: Monthly.
Evaluate: At the start and conclusion of these meetings using the informal
survey listed above. Discussion of progress can also be done formally as
an agenda in this meeting.
Employee participation.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 123
Table 11
Summary of Performance Goals, Timeline, and Measurement of Performance Goals for
Stakeholder 3 (National Park Service)
Stakeholder Performance Goal (PG) Goal Measure
PG #1 for Cascading Goal 1:
Align and consolidate continued research efforts of current leadership
training programs in different NPS parks and regions.
Implement: Immediately.
Evaluate: By 2016 FEVS.
Progress of current efforts.
PG #2 for Cascading Goal 1:
Improved evaluation of promising best practices of the above-mentioned
leadership training programs (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006).
Implement: Immediately.
Evaluate: By 2016 FEVS.
Progress of current efforts.
PG #3 for Cascading Goal 1:
Continue to reach out and learn from other federal agencies with high
EVS scores to learn their best practices to improve employee
satisfaction.
Implement: Immediately.
Evaluate: By 2016 FEVS.
Progress of current efforts.
Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to list the assumed validated causes revealed in Chapter
4 and present possible solutions to assist CLNP in closing the employee knowledge/skills,
motivation, and organizational performance gaps in order to increase employee satisfaction.
Rationales for the selection and prioritization of validated causes, as well as recommended
solutions were presented. All proposed solutions were based on employee needs on having more
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 124
open communication, reciprocal accountability, sufficient resources, and access to more effective
professional and leadership development training. Many proposed solutions were based on
employee suggestions taken from the EVS workshops, CLNP employee action plans, and
individual CLNP employee interviews. These solutions were then compared against research-
based solutions suggested in the scholarly literature pertaining to employee satisfaction. The
solutions to address the validated causes were presented and organizational, cascading, and
necessary performance goals were projected to start closing the employee performance gaps and
begin increasing employee satisfaction ratings by the 2014 and 2016 FEVS. Chapter 6 will
conclude this case study with a proposed system of evaluation of the recommended solutions.
Strengths and weaknesses of the gap analysis model will be discussed as well as limitations of
this case study. Recommendations for future research will also be proposed. Finally, this case
study will end with a summative conclusion and section on implications.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 125
CHAPTER 6
EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION
The purpose of this case study was to understand what stakeholders in Casa Linda
National Park (CLNP) point to as the assumed causes of knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational performance gaps leading to low employee satisfaction. In Chapter 4, assumed
causes were identified, corroborated, triangulated, and validated via observation of the EVS
workshops held in CLNP, document analysis of the 2012 FEVS and CLNP employee action
plans, and individual CLNP employee interviews. Chapter 5 listed and prioritized those assumed
causes and presented possible solutions to assist CLNP leadership close the performance gaps
and increase employee satisfaction. This final chapter will provide recommendations to evaluate
the impact of those solutions. This chapter answers the third study question: How might these
solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
Recommendations for Evaluation
Evaluation is the final, and perhaps most crucial, step in the gap analysis process. Rueda
(2011) observed that solutions may not always work just because they should work. In a sense,
evaluation is a form of quality control in which examination of the results of solutions is done to
make sure they actually resolved the intended performance gaps and did not lead to other
unintended consequences. In CLNP, the four-level formative evaluation system proposed by
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006) is recommended: (a) Level 1: Reactions, (b) Level 2: Impact,
(c) Level 3: Transfer, and (d) Level 4: Bottom Line Results.
Level 1: Reactions
According to Rueda (2011), this level is basically a measure of motivation. It assesses
how enthusiastic or satisfied employees are about the implementation of performance gap
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 126
solutions. Assessments can be made via questionnaires, surveys, interviews, or focus groups.
Self-reporting questions on whether people like and value a solution can be asked at the
conclusion of introducing the solution (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the case of CLNP, the proposed
employee EVS committee can collaborate with park leaders to create a short and informal
questionnaire on Survey Monkey. These questionnaires can be electronically sent via internal
NPS employee email or printed and then handed out to everyone at the start and end of the
proposed weekly EVS committee/management meetings and monthly ‘all hands on deck’ town
hall meetings with the CLNP superintendent. During both meetings, employees and park leaders
can also formally discuss progress in an open forum or in focus groups. Positive feedback from
most employees and park leaders is anticipated due to the collaborative, participatory, and
employee-centric nature of the proposed solutions.
Level 2: Impact
Level 2 assesses whether there been visible changes in knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational performance gaps. Progress in employee knowledge can be assessed using the
same self-reporting methods mentioned in Level 1. Perceptions of progress in employee
motivation and organizational changes can be noted by direct assessment/observation from peer
CLNP employees and leaders. All perceived changes in knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational performance gaps can be discussed in the proposed weekly EVS
committee/management meetings and monthly ‘all hands on deck’ town hall meetings. Positive
expectations are anticipated that morale will slowly increase for all CLNP stakeholders once the
recommended solutions to address the performance gaps are implemented. Specifically,
employee satisfaction levels will rise when they: (a) collaborate with park leaders to
communicate and share information on the progress of park projects, (b) start to feel more
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 127
respected due to a new organizational environment of mutual trust and reciprocal
accountability, (c) have more resources to do their jobs, and (d) feel a greater sense of
motivation and commitment and see higher standards of honesty and integrity in CLNP due to
access to more effective and real-world leadership development training. In the end, even simple
evidence of observable attempts at positive organizational change in CLNP may be enough to
increase morale in many stakeholders, even if recommended solutions themselves fail.
Level 3: Transfer
Level 3 assesses whether employees actually change their behavior due to implemented
solutions over a sustained period of time. For organizational change practitioners, Level 3 may
be the truest measure of the effectiveness of interventions (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). If
the recommended solutions to address the employee performance gaps are implemented
immediately, CLNP’s participation in the 2014 FEVS can be used as the halfway measuring
point toward the 2016 FEVS. The timing of the 2014 FEVS will be key, however. If the 2014
FEVS is administered to CLNP in the early fall months, CLNP results on the 2014 FEVS can be
used to gauge initial results as a result of the culmination of all the weekly EVS
committee/management and monthly ‘all hands on deck’ meetings up to that point. If the 2014
FEVS is conveniently scheduled several months after implementation of recommended solutions,
it is expected that improvements in CLNP employee satisfaction scores will be modest but
promising. These improved scores can be used as a foundation to justify sustained continuation
of positive organizational change efforts.
Level 4: Bottom Line Results
Level 4 assesses whether the overall organizational (global) goal is being or has been
closed. Clark and Estes (2008) observed that this level of evaluation may be the most difficult to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 128
address, particularly if early results in levels 2 and 3 are mixed or not promising. Rueda (2011)
added that in many organizations, expectations of rapid progressive change are unrealistic and
that stakeholders should show patience and resolve for positive end results. In the case of CLNP,
participation in the 2016 FEVS can be used as the final benchmark to evaluate the effectiveness
of recommended solutions. While implementation of recommended solutions is expected to
produce immediate incremental results, both CLNP employees and leaders need to be cognizant
that there is no easy exit strategy. CLNP stakeholders need to learn from small wins and
continue the momentum in order to effectively address all performance gaps by the 2016 FEVS.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The strength of the gap analysis model is that it is systematic and uses a problem-solving
approach to examine the human causes behind performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). As
mentioned in Chapter 3, Rueda (2011) reported that the gap analysis model investigates and
validates assumed causes of gaps so that resources and solutions are directed toward important
causes of gaps in performance. The gap analysis has real-world application because it is designed
to assist organizations in solving real-world problems. Organizations in both the private and
public sector have used gap analysis principles to improve productivity, effectiveness, and
mission readiness (Clark & Estes, 2008). The use of evaluation of results is an additional
strength of the gap analysis because organizations that do not use proper evaluation steps run the
risk of continuing erroneous solutions and causing more harm than good. Finally, the gap
analysis model ‘scaffolds’ objectives into a series of cascading short and intermediate-term goals
in order to eventually accomplish long-term organizational and individual goals, while constantly
assessing and evaluating to maximize levels of performance. In a sense, while being arguably
‘revolutionary,’ the gap analysis model is essentially ‘evolutionary.’
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 129
The thoroughness and detail-orientation of the gap analysis model could also be one of its
major drawbacks. In today’s fast-paced economy where decision-makers want bottom line
results quickly, organizations may not have the resources or patience to painstakingly follow the
linear process of the gap analysis model and will be tempted instead to skip steps and jump
straight into solutions without careful proper research and evaluation of data. Finally, some
organizations may not even consider using the gap analysis model because of perceptions that
the process will be too expensive, complicated, and time-consuming (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Limitations
Marshall and Rossman (1995) observed that perfectly designed and executed studies
simply do not exist and every research study has limitations. This case study was no exception.
The first limitation was the use of CLNP scores on the 2012 FEVS to understand employee
satisfaction in CLNP. While having existing quantitative data was highly useful to get an initial
understanding of employee issues in CLNP, the structure of the EVS itself was sometimes
difficult to use as an outside investigator with limited exposure to federal bureaucracies. An
example of this difficulty lay in the vague wording of several EVS items. As observed in both
EVS workshops in CLNP, there were several instances when employees reported that they were
confused on some EVS items pertaining to their leaders. Some CLNP employees reported that
they did not know if those EVS items pertained to their immediate supervisors, senior park
leaders, or leaders in regional areas or WASO. As a result, it is possible that some CLNP data on
employees’ perceptions of CLNP and NPS leaders may have been inflated or skewed. As also
mentioned in Chapter 3, the EVS was created as a tool to provide a snapshot of federal
employees’ perceptions of working conditions in their agencies. Since the EVS was created to
assess many federal agencies at once, the wording of some EVS items appeared redundant at
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 130
times. Several EVS items also did not appear to consider the contextual and geographical
uniqueness of CLNP, let alone the uniqueness of the hundreds of other parks in the NPS system.
As a result, some findings from this case study may be difficult to generalize to other NPS parks
and even other federal agencies.
The second limitation was the small sample size used for the qualitative data in this case
study. For this case study, one NPS park/site was surveyed. In terms of the observations of the
two EVS workshops, 23 out of 50 CLNP employees attended so only 23 employees were
observed. In terms of individual interviews, 13 out of the 23 CLNP employees at the EVS
workshops initially volunteered to be interviewed, however, only seven were actually
interviewed. It is highly probable that time constraints and conflicting work schedules were
factors in overall CLNP employee availability. As a result, it is not known whether saturation of
themes and information was achieved based on these sample sizes (Merriam, 2009).
Future Research
Based on the relatively small sample size mentioned above, future researchers could
focus on obtaining more CLNP interviews in order to ensure a more rich and robust study. It
should be noted that the seven interview participants only represented three of the five divisions
in CLNP. Critical viewpoints from CLNP employees in different work contexts may have been
missed, so it is advisable for future researchers to interview as many stakeholders from as many
varied backgrounds as possible. Future researchers could also investigate how demographics
such as gender, age, and years in service may specifically affect employee satisfaction in CLNP.
Since the observations of the EVS workshops were done in the non-peak season at CLNP, it
should also be noted that seasonal employees were not present at the time of data collection.
Taking that into consideration, future researchers could also look at the perspectives of seasonal
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 131
employees and volunteers. Finally, in order to get a more balanced study, researchers could also
include perspectives of CLNP leaders in future studies. In the observation of the EVS
workshops, employees reported that many of their leaders shared many of the same workplace
frustrations in terms of knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational performance gaps
themselves. Making sure all voices are heard may be imperative in closing all performance gaps
in CLNP.
Conclusion
Due to decreasing FEVS scores since 2002, NPS leaders took actionable steps in 2013 to
strengthen employee commitment and engagement by conducting EVS workshops in 24 NPS
parks to convey the importance of the results of the 2012 FEVS and to develop viable
recommendations to increase employee satisfaction. Casa Linda National Park (CLNP) was one
of the 24 NPS parks selected.
The purpose of this case study was to understand what stakeholders in Casa Linda
National Park (CLNP) point to as the assumed causes of knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational performance gaps leading to low employee satisfaction. Using the gap analysis
model, root causes of the CLNP employee performance gaps were identified and validated by
triangulating qualitative data collected via observations of the EVS workshops held in CLNP,
document analysis of CLNP employee action plans, and individual CLNP employee interviews.
The validated causes pertained to employees’ needs: (a) for more open communication and
information sharing on the outcomes of park projects, (b) to feel respected in CLNP via more
mutual trust and reciprocal accountability, (c) for more sufficient resources, and (d) to feel a
greater sense of motivation and commitment and see higher standards of honesty and integrity in
CLNP via access to more effective professional and leadership development NPS training.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 132
Recommended solutions to address the validated causes were presented for implementation and
organizational, cascading, and necessary performance goals were projected to start closing the
employee performance gaps and begin increasing employee satisfaction ratings by the 2014 and
2016 FEVS. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-level model of evaluation was also
suggested to assess the effectiveness of the recommended solutions.
Employee satisfaction has been extensively studied in the private sector, but there is
limited academic research on job satisfaction in the public sector (Ting, 1996). The implication
of this case study is to add to a growing foundation of scholarly knowledge of employee
satisfaction in the Federal Government. The findings in this case study may be useful to
practitioners in both private and public sector bureaucracies interested in learning how increased
communication, accountability, resources, and access to effective leadership training can be
integral in attempts at positive organizational change. Low employee satisfaction is not a
problem isolated to CLNP, the NPS, or the Federal Government but a ubiquitous issue in the
American workplace. Perhaps findings from this case study can assist researchers and
organizations in better understanding the importance of addressing employee needs and the
pivotal roles all employees play.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 133
REFERENCES
Ainspan, N. D., & Dell, D. (2000). Employee communication during mergers (Research Report
No. 270-00 RR). New York, NY: The Conference Board.
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth. New York: NY: Free Press.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY:
Longman.
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). Retrieved January 27, 2013, from
http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/landuse/Vol141/anss.htm
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
Barker, J. A. (1993). Paradigms: The business of discovering the future. New York, NY: Future
Edge.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 134
Barnard, C. I. (1968). The functions of the executive (13th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). The ethics of transformational leadership. In J. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics: The
heart of leadership (pp. 169-192). Westport, CT: Praeger.
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.
Bates, J. E. (1989). Concepts and measures of temperament. In G. A. Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates, &
M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 3-26). New York, NY: Wiley.
Bavelas, A., & Barrett, D. (1951). An experimental approach to organizational communication.
Personnel, 27, 366-371.
Beatty, M. J., & Valencic, K. M. (2000). Context-based apprehension versus planning demands:
A communibiological analysis of anticipatory public speaking anxiety. Communication
Education, 49, 58-71.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York, NY:
HarperCollins.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (2007). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York, NY:
HarperCollins.
Berman, E. M., & West, J. P. (1998). Productivity enhancement efforts in public and nonprofit
organizations. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22(2), 207-219.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 135
Berry, F. S., & Wechsler, B. (1995). State agencies’ experience with strategic planning: Findings
from a national survey. Public Administration Review, 55(2), 159-168.
Bies, R. 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 (pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal
accounts. Social Justice Research, 1, 199-218.
Blackburn, R., & Rosen, B. (1993). Total quality and human resources management: Lessons
learned from Baldrige award-winning companies. The Academy of Management
Executive, 7(3), 49-66.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing
organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolton, M. (2003). Public sector performance measurement: Delivering greater accountability.
Work Study, 52(1), 20-24.
Bontis, N., Richards, D., & Serenko, A. (2011). Improving service delivery: Investigating the
role of information sharing, job characteristics, and employee satisfaction. The Learning
Organization, 18(3), 239-250.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 136
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.
Broder, J. M. (2012, March 22). A tally of green jobs. New York Times. Retrieved January 30,
2013, from http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/a-tally-of-green-jobs/
Brown, W., & May, D. (2012). Organizational change and development: The efficacy of
transformational leadership training. Journal of Management Development, 31(6), 520-
536.
Bruins, J., & DeGilder, D. (1999). Power use and credibility as determinants of evaluative and
behavioral perceptions. Journal of Psychology, 29, 84-101.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules. 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 and Row.
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.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 137
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as
determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4),
821-832
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.
Carnevale, D. G. (1995). Trustworthy government: Leadership and management strategies for
building trust and high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Carter, D. L. (1995). Community policing and DARE: A practitioner’s perspective. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Cheever, F. (1997). The United States Forest Service and National Park Service: Paradoxical
mandates, powerful founders, and the rise and fall of agency discretion. Denver
University Law Review, 74, 625-648.
Cherng, M., & Heaney, M. (2005). Best practices in friends groups and National Parks.
Washington, D.C.: National Parks Conservation Association, Center for Park
Management.
Cho, Y. J., & Sai, N. (2013). Does organizational justice matter in the federal workplace? Review
of Public Personnel Administration, 33(3), 227-251. doi:10.1177/0734371X12458126
Ciotta, D. (2011). Accountability increases ability. Collector, 77(3), 30-31.
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. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 138
Clifford, D. K., & Cavanaugh, R. E. (1985). The winning performance. New York; NY: Bantam
Books.
Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t. New
York, NY: HarperCollins.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using
integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 100, 110-127.
Conley, C. (2007). Peak: How great companies get their mojo from Maslow. Retrieved March
20, 2013, from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/theberylinstitute.site-
ym.com/resource/resmgr/conference_2010_pdf/chipconley.pdf
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A
motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.),
Self processes in development: Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 23, pp.
167-216). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C., & Stone, E. F. (1992). Job satisfaction. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Crawford, C. B., & Strohkirch, C. S. (2002). Leadership education for knowledge organizations:
A primer. The Journal of Leadership Education, 1(2), 18-33.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 139
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.
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.
Daniels, K., & Bailey, A. (1999). Strategy development processes and participation in decision-
making: Predictors of role stressors and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Management
Studies, 8(1), 27-42.
Darvish, H., & Rezaei, F. (2011). The impact of authentic leadership on job satisfaction and team
commitment. Management & Marketing, 6(3), 421-436.
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.
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.
Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society, New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
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.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 140
Dye, J. (2011). Backbone: History, traditions, and leadership lessons of Marine Corps NCOs.
Oxford, UK: Osprey.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. William (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3., Social, emotional, and personality
development, pp. 1017-1095). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Eiferman, J., Anderson, E., & Szymanski, C. (2012). Internal branding, benefits & applications
for the National Park Service. Washington, D.C.: National Parks Conservation
Association, Center for Park Management.
Eisler, B. (2012, March 10). Whistleblower in Dan Snyder scandal writes a book. WJLA.
Retrieved January 27, 2013, from http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/03/only-on-7-
whistleblower-in-dan-snyder-scandal-writes-a-book--73602.html
Ellickson, M. C. (2002). Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government employees.
Public Personnel Management, 31(3), 343-358.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The vital
professional development in education. Washington, D.C.: Albert Shanker Institute.
Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The scientific study of personality. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan.
Eysenck, H. J. (1956). The questionnaire measurement of neuroticism and extraversion. Revista
di Psiocologia, 50, 113-140.
Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Superfactors, P, E, and N in a comprehensive factor space. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 13, 475-481.
Eysenck, H. J. (1998). Dimensions of personality (Rev. ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Fandt, P. M. (1991). The relationship of accountability and interdependent behavior to enhancing
team consequences. Group and Organization studies, 16, 300-312.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 141
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? American Review of Public Administration, 41, 23-47.
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, J. K., & Weissbein, D. A. (1997). Transfer of training: An updated review and analysis.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10(2), 22-41.
Fortwangler, C. (2007). Friends with money: Private support for a national park in the US Virgin
Islands. Conservation and Society, 5(4), 504.
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and
human resource management. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Galvan, J. (2009). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral
sciences. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Gardner, J. W. (1987). The moral aspects of leadership. Washington, D.C.: Independent Sector.
Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational
context: An empirical examination. Group & Organization Management, 23(1), 48-70.
Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive
school reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 142
Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of
organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching
fairness in human resource management (pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Greene, J. R. (2000). Community policing in America: Changing the nature, structure, and
function of the police. Criminal Justice, 3, 299-370.
Greller, M. M., & Parsons, C. K. (1992). Feedback and feedback inconsistency as sources of
strain and self-evaluation. Human Relations, 45, 601-620.
Grunig, L. A. (1990). An exploration of the causes of job satisfaction in public relations.
Management Communication Quarterly, 3(3), 355-375.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review
and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669-692.
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.
Harmon, J., Scotti, D. J., Behson, S., Farias, G., Petzel, R., Neuman, J. H., & Keashly, L. (2003).
Effects of high-involvement work systems on employee satisfaction and service costs in
veterans’ healthcare. Journal of Healthcare Management, 48(6), 393-405.
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.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 143
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268.
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.
Heskett, J. L., Sasser, W. E., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1997). Service profit chain. New York, NY:
Simon and Schuster.
Higgins, J. (1999). What motivates employees: Workers and supervisors. Business Horizons, 30,
58-65.
Hock, D. (2005). One from many. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics. New York, NY: Free Press.
Hopkins, A. H. (1983). Work and job satisfaction in the public sector. Totowa, NJ: Rowman &
Allanheld.
Hsieh, T. (2010). Delivering happiness: A path to profits, passion, and purpose. New York, NY:
Business Plus.
Ivancevich, J., & Donnelly, J. (1968). Job satisfaction research: A manageable guide for the
practitioner. Personnel Journal, 47, 172-177.
Jenkins, A. K. (2009). Keeping the talent: Understanding the needs of engineers and scientists in
the defense acquisition workforce. Acquisition Review Journal, 16(1), 1-19.
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.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 144
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), 80-92.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin,
127(3), 376.
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.
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
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 145
Kemmis, S., & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory action research and the study of practice. In
B. Atweh, S. Kemmis, & P. Weeks (Eds.), Action research in practice: Partnerships for
social justice in education (pp. 21-36). London, UK: Routledge.
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 Jr., W. C., Lahiff, J. M., & Hatfield, J. D. (1988). A discrepancy theory of the relationship
between communication and job satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 5(1),
36-43.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels
(3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Kirkpatrick, S., & Locke, E. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic
leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
36-51.
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.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 146
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(4),
464-486.
Kluger, A., & DiNisi, A. (1998). Feedback interventions: Toward the understanding of a double-
edged sword. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(3), 67-42.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Kuhnert, K. W. (1994). Transforming leadership: Developing people through delegation. In B.
M. Bass & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership (pp. 10-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lam, C., & O’Higgins, E. (2011). Enhancing employee outcomes: The interrelated influence of
managers’ emotional intelligence and leadership style. Leadership and Organizational
Development Journal, 33(2), 149-174.
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the
twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 486-516.
Lawler, E. E. III, & Shuttle, J. L. (1973). A causal correlation test of the need hierarchy concept.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 265-287.
Lee, G., & Jimenez, B. S. (2011). Does performance management affect job turnover intention in
the federal government? The American Review of Public Administration, 41(2), 168-184.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 147
Leventhal, G. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of
fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergne, M. S. Greenburg, & R. H. Willis (Eds),
Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York, NY: Plenum.
Lewis, G. B. (1991). Turnover and the quiet crisis in the federal civil service. Public
Administration Review, 51(2), 145-155.
Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of
uncertainty management. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 24, pp. 181-223). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Luthans, F., Zhu, W., & Avolio, B. J. (2006). The impact of efficacy on work attitudes across
cultures. Journal of World Business, 41(2), 121-132.
Maccoby, M. (1981). The leader. New York, NY: Ballantine.
Madlock, P. E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and
employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 61-78.
Malkin, M. (2012, February 22). The high priests of eco-destruction. MichelleMalkin.com.
Retrieved January 27, 2013, from http://michellemalkin.com/2012/02/22/the-high-priests-
of-eco-destruction/
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 148
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Maslow, A. H. (1998). Maslow on management. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.
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.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new
organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23, 473-490.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mertens, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-
emancipatory perspective. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 135-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 149
Miller, J. (2010, September 7). Communication, leadership make the best agencies run.
FederalNewsRadio.com. Retrieved January 21, 2014, from
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/697/2046319/Communication-leadership-make-the-
best-agencies-run
Miller, J. (2011, November 17). FDIC, Surface Board rely on communication to take top spots
on ‘best places to work’ list. FederalNewsRadio.com. Retrieved January 21, 2014, from
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/437/2636706/FDIC-Surface-Board-rely-on-
communication-to-take-top-spots-on-Best-Places-to-Work-list
Miller, J. (2012, December 14). Highest ranked agencies distinguished by strong leadership.
FederalNewsRadio.com. Retrieved January 21, 2014, from
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/529/3156902/Highest-ranked-agencies-distinguished-
by-strong-leadership
Muchinsky, P. (1987). Psychology applied to work: An introduction to industrial and
organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press.
Muraskin, R., & Roberts, A. (2009). Visions for change (5th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
National Park Service. (2012). A call to action. Retrieved May 3, 2013, from
http://www.nps.gov/calltoaction/
National Park Service. (2013a). Mission. Retrieved February 18, 2013, from
http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/mission.htm
National Park Service. (2013b). National Park Service history. Retrieved February 18, 2013,
from http://www.nps.gov/history/
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 150
National Park Service Office of Learning & Development. (2012). EVS users guide for NPS.
Washington, D.C.: Author.
National Park Service Office of Workforce Management. (2012). Briefing statement: Release of
2012 Employee Viewpoint Survey data and resources to support managers. Washington,
D.C.: Author.
National Parks Second Century Commission. (2008). Advancing the National Park idea:
National Parks Second Century Commission report. Retrieved January 29, 2014, from
http://www.npca.org/assets/pdf/Commission_Report.PDF
National Parks Second Century Commission. (2009). Advancing the National Park Idea:
Capacity Committee report. Retrieved January 21, 2014, from
http://www.npca.org/assets/pdf/Committee_Capacity.PDF
Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Randall, R., & Munir, F. (2009). The mediating effects of team and self-
efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job satisfaction and
psychological well-being in healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional questionnaire
survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1236-1244.
Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Nyhan, R. C. (2000). Changing the paradigm trust and its role in public sector organizations. The
American Review of Public Administration, 30(1), 87-109.
O’Reilly, C. A. III, & Chatman, J. A. (1994). Working smarter and harder: A longitudinal study
of managerial success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 603-627.
Oshagbemi, T. (2003). Personal correlates of job satisfaction: Empirical evidence from UK
universities. International Journal of Social Economics, 30(12), 1210-1232.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 151
Oshen, R. (2010, February 14). The Oystergate Scandal. SinsOfCommission.com. Retrieved
January 27, 2013, from http://www.sinsofcommission.com/California-Coast/tag/the-
oystergate-scandal/
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An
organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963-963.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66, 543-578.
Partnership for Public Service. (2009). Best places to work in the federal government, 2009 —
National Park Service detailed comparison to other agency groups. Retrieved from
http://bestplacestowork.org/
Partnership for Public Service. (2012). Agency report: National Park Service.
BestPlacesToWork.org. Retrieved January 27, 2013, from
http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/detail/IN10/pdf
Partnership for Public Service. (2013). Agency report: National Park Service.
BestPlacesToWork.org. Retrieved February 11, 2014, from
http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/detail/IN10
Patton, M. Q. (1982). Practical evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Peters, T. J., & Austin, N. (1985). A passion for excellence. New York, NY: Random House.
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.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 152
Pincus, J. D. (2006). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human
Communication Research, 12(3), 395-419.
Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Pitcaithley, D. T. (2007). On the brink of greatness: National Parks and the next century. The
George Wright Forum, 24(2), 9-20.
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,
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, 1, 107-142.
Porter, H., Wrench, J. S., & Hoskinson, C. (2007). The influence of supervisor temperament on
subordinate job satisfaction and perceptions of supervisor sociocommunicative
orientation and approachability. Communication Quarterly, 55(1), 129-153.
doi:10.1080/01463370600998517
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 153
PR Newswire. (2012, June 14). New National Park Service/Interior scandals: Retirees tell Hill of
illegal lobbying push, Bush Campaign-related travel by Mainella and Norton. PR
Newswire. Retrieved January 27, 2013, from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-
releases/new-national-park-serviceinterior-scandals-retirees-tell-hill-of-illegal-lobbying-
push-bush-campaign-related-travel-by-mainella-and-norton-74970192.html
Pulakos, E. D., & O’Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is performance management broken? Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 4, 146-164.
Rein, L. (2012, December 13). Best and worst places to work in federal government. Washington
Post. Retrieved January 30, 2013, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/best-
and-worst-places-to-work-in-federal-government/2012/12/12/3cacb7d8-4472-11e2-8061-
253bccfc7532_story.html
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.
Repanshek, K. (2009, May 7). National Research Council blasts Park Service report on oyster
farming at Point Reyes National Seashore. National Parks Traveler. Retrieved January
27, 2013, from http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2009/05/national-research-council-
blasts-park-service-report-oyster-farming-point-reyes-national-sea
Repanshek, K. (2011, November 30). National Park Service falls in ‘best places to work’
rankings. National Parks Traveler. Retrieved January 27, 2013, from
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2011/11/national-park-service-falls-best-places-
work-rankings9091
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 154
Repanshek, K. (2012, December 13). National Park Service still lags in “best places to work”
survey of federal agencies. National Parks Traveler. Retrieved January 27, 2013, from
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/12/national-park-service-still-lags-best-
places-work-survey-federal-agencies22574
Rogers, E. M., & Agarwala-Rogers, R. (1976). Communication in organizations. New York,
NY: The Free Press.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Praeger.
Rowley, J. (1999). What is knowledge management? Library Management, 20(8), 416-419.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. G. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the white
space on the organizational chart (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Runte, A. (1979). National parks: The American experience. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Salacuse, J. W. (2007). Real leaders negotiate. University Business, 10, 2-3.
Salkind, N. (2008). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Salmon, G. L. (2008). The evolution of coaching in the US federal government. International
Journal of Coaching in Organisations, 6(1), 7-17.
Salter, D. J. (1989). Leadership styles in United States Marine Corps transport helicopter
squadrons. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School.
Schneider, B., & Alderfer, C. (1973). Three studies of measures of need satisfaction in
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 498-505.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 155
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1992). Personnel/human resources management in the service
sector. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 10, 1-30.
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.
Self, C., McConnell, K., Schroeder, M., & Ryan, M. (2008). Current practices: Leadership
development. Washington, D.C.: National Parks Conservation Association, Center for
Park Management.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Shaw, K. (2005). Getting leaders involved in communication strategy: Breaking down the
barriers to effective leadership communication. Strategic Communication Management,
9, 14-17.
Shear, M. D. (2013, October 17). Government gets back to business, but effects of the shutdown
linger. New York Times. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/us/politics/government-reopens.html
Smith, B. (2012, April 3). NPS Ranger — with ties to Margaret Anderson — becomes agency
whistleblower, writes book. The Mountain News — WA. Retrieved January 27, 2013,
from http://themountainnewswa.net/2012/04/03/nps-ranger-with-ties-to-margaret-
anderson-becomes-agency-whistleblower-writes-book/
Smith, M. A., & McCanger, J. S. (2004). Effects of supervisor ‘‘big five’’ personality on
subordinate attitude. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 17-34.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 156
Smith, R. (2011, July 31). Billy Malone and the National Park Service investigation at Hubbell
Trading Post. National Parks Traveler. Retrieved January 27, 2013, from
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/review/2011/billy-malone-and-national-park-
service-investigaton-hubbell-trading-post8533
Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and impression.
Communication Education, 32, 323-329.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1981, November). Self-monitoring and relational
competence. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention,
Anaheim, CA.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998a). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240-261.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998b). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: Going beyond
traditional motivational and behavioral approaches. Organizational Dynamics, 26(4), 62-
74.
Stohl, C. (1984, May). Quality circles and the quality of communication. Paper presented at the
Speech Communication Association Convention, Chicago, IL.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sweeney, P. J., Thompson, V., & Blanton, H. (2009). Trust and influence in combat: An
interdependence model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(1), 235-264.
Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on
the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(2), 295-305.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 157
Tetlock, P. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
Treutelaar, J. (2009). Making America’s best idea the best place to work. NPS Digest. Retrieved
May 3, 2013, from http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/headline.cfm?
type=Announcements&id=8427
Trojanowicz, R., & Bucqueroux, B. (1990). Community policing: A contemporary perspective.
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 158
U.S. Department of the Interior. (2008). Learning and development report to the National
Leadership Council. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved March 30, 2013, from
http://inside.nps.gov/waso/waso.cfm?prg=63&lv=2
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Park Service: Agency needs to better manage the
increasing role of nonprofit partners. Washington D.C.: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2004). National Park Foundation: Better communication of
roles and responsibilities is needed to strengthen partnership with the National Park
Service. Washington D.C.: Author.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (2012). Federal employee engagement: The motivating
potential of job characteristics and rewards. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved
January 22, 2014, from http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?
docnumber=780015&version=782964
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2012). Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey results.
Retrieved March 23, 2013, from http://www.fedview.opm.gov/2012/
U.S. Supreme Court. (1989). City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378; No. 86-1088.
Vaill, P. B. (1982). The purposing of high-performance systems. Organizational Dynamics,
11(2), 23-39.
Wade, B. (2005). A new tragedy for the commons: The threat of privatization to National Parks
(and other public lands). The George Wright Forum, 22(2), 61-67.
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.
Waterman, R. H. Jr. (1994). What America does right: Learning from companies that put people
first. New York, NY: Norton.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 159
Weber, M. (1964). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T.
Parsons, Trans.). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1922)
Weiss, H. M., Cropanzano, R., Staw, B. M., & Cummings, L. L. (1996). Research in
organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Welch, C. (2012, January 2). Park rangers’ jobs increasingly dangerous. The Seattle Times.
Retrieved February 18, 2013, from
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2017147696_parkpatrol03m.html
West, B. (2008). The strongest tribe: War, politics, and the endgame in Iraq. New York, NY:
Random House.
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., & Howard, R. D. (1984). The relationships of communication
with supervisor and decision-participation to employee job satisfaction. Communication
Quarterly, 32(3), 222-232.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). The
development of achievement motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology (Vol. 3, 6th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Wood, J., & Winston, B. (2005). Toward a new understanding of leader accountability: Defining
a critical construct. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, 84-95.
Wooten, K. C., & Cobb, A. T. (1999). Career development and organizational justice: Practice
and research implications. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10, 173-179.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 160
Worrall, J. L. (1998). Administrative determinants of civil liability lawsuits against municipal
police departments: An exploratory analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 44(2), 295-313.
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.
Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership and
performance: A longitudinal investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 81-102.
Yang, K., & Kassekert, 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. (2005). Leadership in organizations (6th 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: CLNP 161
APPENDIX A
BEHAVIORS ALIGNED TO STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK
Table 12
Communication Behaviors Aligned to Structural Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Andrews and Kacmar
(2001)
Performance feedback
from supervisors/leaders
is critical.
Clampitt and Downs
(1993)
Performance feedback
from supervisors/leaders
is critical.
Hargie, Tourish, and
Wilson (2002)
Face-to-face
communication.
Increased information
flow.
Building trust.
Jo and Shim (2005) Trust built by positive
interpersonal
communication: useful
instruction, helpful
advice.
Johlke and 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: CLNP 162
Table 12, continued
Author Knowledge 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.
Pincus (2006)
Supervisor
communication
(supervisor openness to
listen to employee
problems),
communication climate
(response to
communication
environment), and
personal feedback (how
performance is judged).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 163
Table 12, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
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: CLNP 164
Table 13
Self-Efficacy Behaviors Aligned to Structural Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Buckingham and Coffman
(1999)
Measures the strength of workplace. Attract, focus, &
keep most talented employees.
Mayer (2011)
Want to learn; express in the amount of effort applied
to understanding.
Work environment including goals & resources for
achievement.
Canrinus, Helms-Lorenz,
Beijaard, Buitink, and
Hofman (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: CLNP 165
Table 13, continued
Author Knowledge 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 (2006)
General self-efficacy (an employee’s estimate of their
ability to successfully perform in various situations) is
significantly and positively related to job satisfaction
and organizational commitment, but negatively related
to turnover.
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
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 166
satisfaction and negatively predicts intent to turnover.
Table 14
Accountability Behaviors Aligned to Structural Framework
Author Knowledge 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); Yang
and Kassekert (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: CLNP 167
Table 14, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Elmore (2002)
Leaders who do not
establish a culture of
reciprocal accountability
(e.g. leader does not hold
oneself accountable for
providing employees with
adequate training and
resources to perform
successfully) have
employees with less job
satisfaction.
Fernandez and
Moldogaziev (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: CLNP 168
Table 14, continued
Author Knowledge 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 Kassekert
(2009)
Leaders’ and Supervisor’
example impact employee
satisfaction and
performance.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 169
Table 15
Leadership Behaviors Aligned to Structural Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Bolman and Deal (2008,
p. 137)
Leaders who utilize a ‘human resource (HR)’
management approach maximize both human
capital and organizational productivity. HR
leaders show interest & compassion in their
employees’ well being.
Darvish 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
(2011)
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: CLNP 170
Table 15, continued
Author Knowledge 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, Côté, 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: CLNP 171
APPENDIX B
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE VIEWPOINT SURVEY RESULTS FOR CASA LINDA NATIONAL
PARK (FICTIONAL—REAL PARK NAME AND REGION HAVE BEEN REDACTED TO
PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY)
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 172
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 173
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 174
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 175
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 176
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 177
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 178
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 179
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 180
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 181
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 182
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 183
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 184
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 185
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 186
APPENDIX C
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Casa Linda 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: CLNP 187
Diagram of room:
Interior observations:
Room conditions:_______________________
Lighting:______________________________
Temperature:___________________________
Food/drink:____________________________
Notes:_________________________________
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 188
Time:
Speaker:
Title:
Group:
Cause:
Why:
Knowledge/skills:
Motivation:
Organizational:
Other:
Communication:
Efficacy:
Accountability:
Leadership:
Other:
Alignment with EVS:
Missing/ avoiding/ ignoring?:
Time:
Speaker:
Title:
Group:
Solution (Action plan):
Why:
Knowledge/skills:
Motivation:
Organizational:
Other:
Communication:
Efficacy:
Accountability:
Leadership:
Other:
Alignment with EVS:
Missing/ avoiding/ ignoring?:
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 189
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
This investigator used a semi-structured interview protocol tool that includes questions
encompassing the three elements of the gap analysis model: (a) knowledge/skills, (b) motivation,
and (c) organizational barriers. This investigator chose this format because a semi-structured
interview protocol allowed for the collection of targeted information that is consistent with the
literature and is directly related to the topic. Furthermore, a semi-structured interview protocol
allowed this investigator to obtain rich data that should provide important insight into the study
questions this investigator used (Merriam, 2009). Within these elements, a series of seven open-
ended sub-questions were included at the time of the interview (as seen below).
Potential Interview Questions
Introduction: “Thank you for meeting with me. I’m a doctoral student at USC and I’m here to
help the park understand more about its EVS findings. It appears that the NPS as a whole
continues to score in the bottom quarter of approximately 250 federal organizations. I’m
interested from your experience in this park, why you think that might be. I hope to be able to
use what I learn from today in helping the park refine its action plan. Anything you tell me will
remain anonymous. I will not attribute anything you say to you either by name or job category.
You may choose to skip any question and you may end this interview at any time. The total time
should take no longer than 30 minutes. What questions do you have for me before we begin?”
Do you mind if I record our interview? I will destroy the recording once I’ve finished my report.
1. It looks like the group from today came up with these factors as possible causes for the
low satisfaction (LIST THEM). How confident are you that the group has surfaced all the
right causes? Anything you would add or take off?
2. IF NOT ALL THE RESEARCH-BASED CAUSES HAVE SURFACED, ASK THIS:
Some research suggests that an additional reason for low satisfaction could be (INSERT
HERE). How does that apply if at all to your experience here?
3. Your group also came up with some action items in response to the scores. How
confident are you that if you completed these plans, employee satisfaction would
improve? How confident are you that the group will successfully complete the plans?
4. Thinking about these action plans, some common reasons why groups don ʻt follow
through are related to motivation – meaning they donʻt think it ʻs important. To what
extent is this a concern, in your opinion
5. Sometimes groups don’t follow through because of skill – they don ʻt 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?
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 190
7. Generally, what would you say are factors preventing your team from reaching 100%
employee satisfaction in this park?
APPENDIX E
ASSUMED CAUSES FROM THE EVS SURVEY AND FROM LEARNING AND
MOTIVATION THEORY
Table 16
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey
Gap Analysis EVS Ratings
EVS Question #
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey
Knowledge
Motivation
Organization
NPS CLNP
1 Employees are not given a real opportunity to improve their
skills in the organization.
X 59% 44.00%
2 Employees do not have enough information to do their job well. X 65% 33.00%
3 Employees do not feel encouraged to come up with new and
better ways of doing things.
X 59% 33%
4 Employee’s work does not give them a feeling of personal
accomplishment.
X 75% 72%
5 Employees do not like the kind of they work. X 87% 94%
6 Employees do not know what is expected of them on the job. X 75% 67%
7 When needed, employees are not willing to put in the extra
effort to get a job done.
X 97% 94%
8 Employees are not constantly looking for ways to do their job
better.
X 92% 94%
9 Employees do not have sufficient resources (for example,
people, materials, budget) to get their jobs done.
X 31% 6%
10 Employees’ workload is unreasonable. X 43% 44%
11 Employees’ talents are not used well in the workplace. X 57% 47%
12 Employees do not know how their work relates to the agency’s
goals and priorities.
X 83% 89%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 191
13 The work employees do is not important. X 92% 83%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 192
Table 16, continued
Gap Analysis EVS Ratings
EVS Question #
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey
Knowledge
Motivation
Organization
NPS CLNP
14 Physical conditions (e.g. noise level, temperature, lighting
cleanliness) do not allow employees to perform their jobs well.
X 66% 78%
15 Employees’ performance appraisal is not a fair reflection of
their performance.
X 66% 50%
16 Employees’ are not held accountable for achieving results. X 80% 72%
17 Employees fear reprisal if they disclose a suspected violation of
any law, rule or regulation.
X 55% 22%
18 Employees’ training needs are not assessed. X 38% 35%
19 In employees’ most recent performance appraisal, employees
did not understood what they had to do to be rated at different
performance levels.
X 66% 67%
20 Employees’ coworkers do not cooperate to get the job done. X 70% 56%
21 Employees’ work unit is not able to recruit people with the right
skills.
X 40% 22%
22 Promotions in the work unit are not based on merit. X 32% 18%
23 In the work unit, steps are not taken to deal with poor performer
who cannot or will not improve.
X 28% 17%
24 In the work unit, differences in performance are not recognized
in a meaningful way.
X 31% 22%
25 Awards in the work unit do not depend on how well employees
perform their jobs.
X 43% 44%
26 Employees in the work unit do not share job knowledge with
each other.
X 69% 44%
27 The skill level in the work unit has not improved in the past
year.
X 50% 44%
28 Employees feel that the overall quality of work done by their
work unit is poor?
X 50% 67%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 193
Table 16, continued
Gap Analysis EVS Ratings
EVS Question #
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey
Knowledge
Motivation
Organization
NPS CLNP
29 The workforce does not have the job-relevant knowledge and
skills necessary to accomplish organizational goals.
X 67% 67%
30 Employees do not have a feeling of personal empowerment with
respect to work processes.
X 41% 17%
31 Employees are not recognized for providing high quality
products and services
X 46% 50%
32 Creativity and innovation are not rewarded. X 36% 41%
33 Pay raises do not depend on how well employees perform their
jobs.
X 15% 0%
34 Policies and programs do not promote diversity in the workplace
(eg. Recruiting minorities and women, training in awareness of
diversity issues, mentoring).
X 51% 41%
35 Employees are not protected from health and safety hazards on
the job.
X 75% 61%
36 The organization has not prepared employees for potential
security threats.
X 55% 28%
37 Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and coercion for partisan
political purposes are tolerated.
X 50% 35%
38 Prohibited personnel practices (e.g., illegally discriminating for
or against any employee/applicant, obstructing a person’s right
to compete for employment) are tolerated.
X 66% 33%
39 My agency is not successful at accomplishing its mission. X 70% 44%
40 I do not recommend my organization as a good place to work. X 67% 61%
41 I do not believe the results of this survey will be used to make
my agency a better place to work.
X 37% 28%
42 Employee’s supervisor does not support their need to balance
work and other life issues.
X 77% 82%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 194
Table 16, continued
Gap Analysis EVS Ratings
EVS Question #
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey
Knowledge
Motivation
Organization
NPS CLNP
43 Employee’s supervisor/team leader does not provide them with
opportunities to demonstrate their leadership skills.
X 67% 53%
44 Discussions with employee’s supervisor/team leader about their
performance are not worthwhile.
X 59% 50%
45 Employees’ supervisor/team leader is not committed to a
workplace representative of all segments of society.
X 64% 37%
46 Employees’ supervisor/team leader does not provide them with
constructive suggestions to improve their job performance.
X 56% 41%
47 Supervisors/team leaders in employee’s work unit do not
support employee development.
X 61% 53%
48 Employee’s supervisor/team leader does not listen to what they
have to say.
X 74% 65%
49 Employee’s supervisor/team leader does not treat them with
respect.
X 77% 76%
50 In the last six months, employee’s supervisor/team leader has
not talked with them about their performance.
X 77% 71%
51 Employees do not have trust and confidence in their supervisor. X 64% 35%
52 Overall, employees feel that their immediate supervisor/team
leader is not doing a good job.
X 65% 53%
53 In the employee’s organization, leaders do not generate high
levels of motivation and commitment in the workplace.
X 38% 23%
54 Employee’s organization’s leaders do not maintain high
standards of honesty and integrity.
X 52% 23%
55 Managers/supervisors/team leaders do not work well with
employees of different backgrounds.
X 58% 35%
56 Managers do not communicate the goals and priorities of the
organization.
X 53% 40%
57 Managers do not review and evaluate the organization’s X 50% 19%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP 195
progress toward meeting its goals and objectives.
Table 16, continued
Gap Analysis EVS Ratings
EVS Question #
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey
Knowledge
Motivation
Organization
NPS CLNP
58 Managers do not promote communciation among different work
units (for example, about projects, goals, needed resources.)
X 46% 33%
59 Managers do not support collaboration across work units to
accomplish work objectives.
X 51% 27%
60 Employees do not feel that the manager directly above their
immediate supervisor/team leader is is doing a good job.
X 53% 47%
61 Employees do not have a high level of respect for their
organization’s senior leaders.
X 48% 29%
62 Senior leaders do not demonstrate support for Work/Life
programs.
X 48% 41%
63 Employees are not statisfied with their involvement in decsions
that affect their work.
X 50% 35%
64 Employees are not satisfied with the information they receive
from management on what’s going on in their organization.
X 44% 12%
65 Employees are not satisfied with the recognition they receive for
doing a good job.
X 46% 41%
66 Employees are not satisfied with the policies and practices of
their senior leaders.
X 38% 29%
67 Employees are not satisfied with their opportunity to get a better
job in their organization.
X 32% 12%
68 Employees are not satisfied with the training they receive for
their present job.
X 44% 41%
69 Considering everything, employees are not satisfied with their
job.
X 66% 47%
70 Considering everything, employees are not satisfied with their
pay.
X 58% 65%
71 Considering everything, employees are not satisfied with their
organization.
X 57% 41%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: CLNP
196
Table 17
Assumed Causes from Learning & Motivation Theory
Knowledge Motivation Organization
Employees need the basic information
necessary to do their jobs (Anderson
& Krathwohl, 2001).
Employees want the confidence necessary
(active choice, persistence, and mental effort)
to accomplish workplace goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Pajares, 1996).
Employees need more
resources to effectively
do their jobs (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Employees need to know how (have
the knowledge or skills) to do their
jobs (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
Employees still believe in the NPS mission
and are capable but increasingly need to see
the point in doing the work/task (Eccles,
Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998).
While employees have related
experience, they need to gain more
relevant experience to apply to future
job tasks (Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001).
Employees want to be engaged and want
more intrinsic value/ motivation and interest
(Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998).
Employees need to know or
understand performance goals or
objectives established for their job
(Bandura, 1997).
Employees want to feel they are valuable
contributors to the institution (Eccles,
Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998).
Employees need to understand the
connection between their job
objectives and the organization’s goals
(Rummler & Brache, 1995).
Employees want good vicarious models
because they want their leaders to be held
accountable and to the same standards
(Bandura, 1977).
Employees need to know who is
establishing the goals for their job and
need to value the goals established
(Locke & Latham, 1990).
Employees want to feel they are in settings
where they can utilize their abilities or
‘agency’ to influence their environments and
behaviors in goal oriented and purposeful
ways (Bandura, 2001).
Employees need better designed /
delivered training (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Employees want higher outcome
expectations so they can have the motivation
to put out more effort (Bandura, 1986).
Employees need correct and complete
information from training programs
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Employees need to know how to apply
or if they are permitted to apply new
skills learned in training programs to
the workplace (Ford & Weissbein,
1997).
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the National Park Service: Kailuana National Park
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Camp Moxie site
PDF
Gap analysis of employee satisfaction at a national park: Round Hill 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
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Picturesque Park
PDF
An examination using the gap analysis framework of employees’ perceptions of promising practices supporting teamwork in a federal agency
PDF
An examination of barriers to effective supervision from the perspective of employees within a federal agency using the GAP analysis framework
PDF
An examination of supervisors’ perspectives of teamwork in a federal agency: promising practices and challenges using a gap analysis framework
PDF
An examination of the facilitators of and barriers to effective supervision from the perspective of supervisors in a federal agency using the gap analysis framework
PDF
The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis
PDF
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
Evaluating collective impact in a local government: A gap analysis
PDF
Examining faculty challenges to improve African Americans’ developmental English outcomes at an urban southern California community college using gap analysis model
PDF
Service provider compliance with regional center service agreement: a gap analysis
PDF
Establishing a systematic evaluation of positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve implementation and accountability approaches using a gap analysis framework
PDF
Employee retention and the success of a for-profit cosmetics company: a gap analysis
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
Asset Metadata
Creator
Roden, Sonny M.
(author)
Core Title
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the National Park Service: Casa Linda National Park
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
09/05/2014
Defense Date
02/28/2014
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
accountability,Communication,employee satisfaction,Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey,federal government,gap analysis,leadership,National Park Service,OAI-PMH Harvest,performance gaps
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Sundt, Melora A. (
committee chair
), Hanson, Katherine (
committee member
), Vance, Justin (
committee member
), Yates, Kenneth A. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
roden@usc.edu,SR09915@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-473376
Unique identifier
UC11287207
Identifier
etd-RodenSonny-2891.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-473376 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-RodenSonny-2891.pdf
Dmrecord
473376
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Roden, Sonny M.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
accountability
employee satisfaction
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
federal government
gap analysis
performance gaps