University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 1

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION WITHIN THE NATIONAL PARKS:
ANUENUE NATIONAL PARK

by

Bryan Daniel Kwai Sun Pang

_________________________________________________________________________

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 Bryan Daniel Kwai Sun Pang

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

2
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to God, my loving Creator; to my wife, Mei, who loves and
has made multiple sacrifices for our family and especially for me; to our beloved and uniquely
special three children: Ashley, Joseph, and Annaliese; to my mother Jeanette, who patiently
raised me, believed in me, and worked hard to provide for my education from elementary school
all the way up through my master’s degree; and to my father, Linuce, who was unable to hold on
to life in this world until my graduation, but heavily influenced my vision for family, church, and
community involvement. You all have been so loving and encouraging to me. I have been so
blessed by all of you. Thank you for all being so loving and supportive.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to give thanks to God for blessing me with such a wonderful family, home,
church, education, and vocation.
There are many people who I would like to acknowledge. First, thank you, Mom, for
believing in me, working so hard and unselfishly throughout my childhood and early adulthood,
and for putting me through school.
Thank you, Dad, for modeling family, church, and community involvement to me.
Thank you to my three mentors, Dr. Keli`i Akina, Dr. George Rhoades, and Mark
Yamamura, for being such excellent male role models to me.
Thank you, Leeward Community Church family, for your love and support to my family
and to me.
Thank you to all my leaders and colleagues in the Leilehua-Mililani-Waialua Complex
Area, for your camaraderie, encouragement, and support. We are such a terrific, proactive team.
Thank you, Dr. Kenneth Yates and Dr. Katherine Hanson, for serving on our committee
and sharing such valued feedback to improve our dissertations.
Thank you, Dr. Melora Sundt, for guiding the seven of us Rangers through the
dissertation process. We learned so much together, thanks to your patience and wisdom.
To my fellow six ranger classmates, thank you for your support and camaraderie. You
are all so special. We all pulled together and finished strong!
To all my fellow USC classmates from the Hawaii Cohort, Class of 2014, thank you for
your friendship and support. It was a very memorable three years’ journey together. I already
miss the regular bi-monthly gatherings. Let’s fight on!
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

4
To Brook, Jane, and my parents-in-law, thank you for all the babysitting support and for
all your encouragement along the way.
To Zhang Wei and his family, for visiting us last summer and cleaning our house, for
researching and ordering me a doctoral gown, and for showing genuine interest in reading this
dissertation.
To my Uncle Gordon, who passed away a few years ago, you were like an older brother
to me. Thank you for leaving some money for me to help pay for my education. I am eternally
grateful to you.
To my two brothers, Laeton and Randy, thank you for all your love and support. Thank
you, Randy, for accompanying Mom to the graduation.
To my three children, Ashley, Joseph, and Annaliese, thank you for your sacrifices and
support. I love you three dearly and pray that God will guide and bless you as much or more as
He has done for me, and that you will discover your gifts, and use them for His glory.
Finally, to my wife, Mei, you made the most sacrifices. This was a difficult trial for both
of us, but especially for you. Thank you for all your sacrifice, hard work, love and support. I
owe you the rest of my life to make it up to you, my darling, sweet, and beautiful bride. May we
journey the world together and may all your dreams come true!

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter 1: Introduction 9
Chapter 2: Literature Review 18
Chapter 3: Methodology 46
Chapter 4: Results 72
Chapter 5: Solutions 102
Chapter 6: Discussion 133
References 146
Appendices 164
Appendix A: Summary Results for Anuenue National Park 164
Appendix B: Causes Aligned to Gap Analysis Framework 179
Appendix C: 2012 EVS Scores for Anuenue National Park (ANP) and NPS 190
Appendix D: ANP EVS Questions That Scored Lower Than 60% (Lowest to 196
Highest)
Appendix E: Observation Protocol 200
Appendix F: Employee Action Plan Notes 202
Appendix G: Data Collection Method: Interview Protocol and Questions 209

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. NPS EVS Scores Compared to the Department of the Interior Highest to 13
Lowest
Table 2. Four Elements as Related to Gap Analysis Framework 45
Table 3. 2012 EVS Best Places to Work Individual Item Scores for ANP/NPS/DOI 50
Table 4. 2012 EVS Category Scores (Lowest to Highest) for ANP, NPS & DOI 52
Table 5. ANP EVS Questions That Scored Lower Than 40% (Lowest to Highest) 58
Table 6. Summary of Assumed Causes for KMO Issues 73
Table 7. Validated Causes at ANP by Data Set 101
Table 8. Validated KMO Needs of Employees 103
Table 9. Summary of Knowledge Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the 128
Solutions
Table 10. Summary of Motivation Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the 128
Solutions
Table 11. Summary of Organization Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the 129
Solutions
Table 12. Summary of Organization’s Main, Short-Term, Cascading, and Performance 130
Goals
Table B1. Assumed Efficacy Causes Aligned to Gap Analysis Framework 179
Table B2. Assumed Communication Causes Aligned to Gap Analysis Framework 182
Table B3. Assumed Leadership Causes Aligned to Gap Analysis Framework 185
Table B4. Assumed Accountability Causes Aligned to Gap Analysis Framework 187

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Gap analysis process 49
Figure 2. EVS survey sorted into knowledge, motivation and organization (KMO) 57
Figure 3. Positive response percentages to EVS knowledge items 60
Figure 4. Positive response percentages to EVS motivation items 61
Figure 5. Positive response percentages to EVS organization items. Anuenue National 63
Park employees’ lowest positive rating percentages among the knowledge,
motivation, and organization causes for low employee satisfaction
Figure 6. Anuenue National Park positive response percentages to EVS knowledge, 99
motivation, and organization items
Figure 7. ANP employees’ top three of the fourteen EVS categories that they felt would 99
make the biggest difference in employee engagement, if changed
Figure 8. Performance-based accountability systems 125

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

8
ABSTRACT
Utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model, the purpose of this study was to
determine the knowledge, motivation, and organization causes of and solutions for low employee
satisfaction ratings at one particular park, referred to by its pseudonym, Anuenue (Hawaiian
word for “Rainbow,” and pronounced “Ah-noo-ay-noo-ay”) National Park (ANP). Triangulating
data from three sources of data helped identify and validate causes of the gap between
employees’ satisfaction ratings and ANP leadership’s desired employee ratings: observation of
facilitated employee sessions, document analysis of employee action plans, and employee
interviews. The validated causes for low employee satisfaction at ANP were that employees
wanted increased levels of communication, trust, fairness, respect, training, and employee
participation in decision-making. The solutions identified to increase ANP employees’
satisfaction ratings included increasing open, ongoing communication and trust; clearly
explaining the employee performance rating system to employees and delivering contingent
consequences; providing accessible, relevant training opportunities; and increasing employee
involvement in the park’s decision-making processes. To determine the effectiveness of these
solutions on closing the employee satisfaction gap, it was recommended that ANP leadership
continuously monitor the results of the solutions using Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006)
four-level evaluation model and appropriate assessment tools like interviews, surveys,
questionnaires, or direct observation, making adjustments where needed. This study found that
communication, trust, respect, fairness, employee participation in decision-making, and adequate
training are critical ingredients to ANP employee satisfaction and that employee satisfaction is
important to organizations because high employee satisfaction translates into increased
productivity, retention, and customer (visitor) satisfaction.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

9
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
For the fourth time in eight years, Google has again been named the #1 “Best Company
to Work For” in 2013 (Moskowitz, 2013). Google won this distinction for its ability to maintain
high satisfaction amongst its 34,311 employees, providing them with such benefits as massages,
wellness centers, and fitness gyms. Their ability to maintain high employee satisfaction is more
notable in light of Google’s #73 Fortune 500 performance ranking, with annual earnings of
nearly $38 billion (Fortune 500, 2012).
Employers can no longer afford to ignore their employees’ perceptions toward their jobs
if they want to achieve organizational goals. Research indicates that employees’ behavior and
performance reflect their level of job satisfaction, which in turn impacts an organization and its
mission (Darvish & Rezaei, 2011; Edgar & Geare, 2005). In particular, Yee, Yeung, and Cheng
(2008) found that employee satisfaction is significantly related to quality service and customer
satisfaction, which ultimately helps to explain an organization’s success. Employee satisfaction
is becoming an even more pressing issue in light of an aging workforce and a wave of
anticipated federal civil service retirements that are expected to occur in the coming years (Lee
& Jimenez, 2011; Light, 2008; Meier & Hicklin, 2008). To the end of maintaining a productive
workforce, the Federal Government, specifically the National Park Service (NPS), surveys its
employees annually to determine their satisfaction levels toward their working environments.
This study will explore employee satisfaction: what it is, what it impacts in an
organization, and how it is manifesting itself as a concern in the National Park Service (NPS),
and to one of its parks in particular, henceforth referred to by pseudonym, Anuenue (Hawaiian
word for “Rainbow,” and pronounced “Ah-noo-ay-noo-ay”) National Park (ANP).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

10
Background of the Problem
The most-used definition of employee satisfaction is that it is “a pleasurable or positive
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Locke, 1976,
p. 1304). Alternatively, employee satisfaction can also be defined as the extent to which
employees are satisfied or dissatisfied with their jobs (Durst & DeSantis, 1997). Essentially,
while there may be a complex set of variables that ultimately determine employee satisfaction,
either one or a combination of the variables leads to a positive or negative evaluation towards
one’s job. The main variables that impact employee satisfaction will be discussed in detail in
Chapter 2.
Employee satisfaction is important because it can impact organizational performance and
customer satisfaction. Evidence suggests that more productive workplaces are less likely to treat
their employees as replaceable cogs in an organizational machine than less productive
workplaces (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Pfeffer, 1998). Johlke, Duhan, Howell, and Wilkes
(2000) argue that organizations seeking to distinguish themselves from competitors are focusing
on increasing the quality of service, which depends heavily on their employees. As mentioned
previously in the introduction, Yee et al. (2008) found that employee satisfaction is significantly
related to quality service and customer satisfaction, which ultimately helps to explain an
organization’s success. Furthermore, according to Buckingham and Coffman (1999) and
Ellickson (2002), high employee satisfaction has also been found to be associated with increased
employee productivity and organizational commitment, lower absenteeism and turnover, and
ultimately, increased organizational effectiveness. However, Priya (2011) notes that industrial
and organizational psychologists have been studying the relationship between employee
satisfaction and job performance for at least 50 years and efforts to establish a causal relationship
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

11
or reliable correlation to confirm this employee satisfaction-productivity relationship have often
had mixed results.
This connection between high employee satisfaction and factors it might positively
impact, such as quality service and customer satisfaction, has not been lost on the NPS. As will
be detailed shortly, the NPS currently suffers from low employee satisfaction and has made it
their goal to be one of the top 10 federal agencies to work for by the end of its first centennial in
the year 2016 (National Park Service [NPS], 2008).
The primary purpose of the NPS is natural and historical preservation. On August 25,
1916, President Woodrow Wilson established the NPS to preserve and protect natural and
historical places for visitor enjoyment (NPS, 2013). The NPS is the largest bureau within the
Department of the Interior and employs nearly 26,000 people that include approximately 17,000
permanent, full-time and 9,000 temporary employees (NPS, 2013). The NPS is divided into
seven regions (Alaska, Intermountain, Midwest, National Capital, Northeast, Pacific West, and
Southeast) and manages 401 parks; 49 national heritage areas; 84 million acres of land; over 4.5
million acres of oceans, lakes, and reservoirs; 85,049 miles of perennial rivers and streams; 68,
561 archeological sites; 43,162 miles of shoreline, 27,000 national historic landmarks; 582
national natural landmarks; 400 endangered species; over 121.6 million objects in museum
collections; and nearly 44 million acres of wilderness (NPS, 2013). With such an immense
scope of responsibility, it is understandable that the NPS would have a strong interest in having
employees that are satisfied with their working environments and are motivated and committed
to accomplishing the NPS’ goals and mission.
With goals and mission in mind, the NPS has been administering and tracking the results
of the Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) every year since 2002 to identify organizational
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

12
strengths and improvement needs (National Park System Advisory Board [NPSAB], 2012). A
copy of the overall ANP/NPS EVS results is included in Appendix A. The survey contains 84
items that measure employee perceptions of the NPS’ work environment using 13 categories of
high performing organizations, such as leadership, supervision, training, benefits, and mission
commitment, and a Likert-type scale that is used ranging from strongly disagree to strongly
agree (U.S. Office of Personnel Management [USOPM], 2012). Parks, regional offices,
Washington office directorates, the Denver Service Center, the U.S. Park Police, and Harper’s
Ferry Center all receive copies of survey reports for their respective locations if they have eight
or more survey respondents. Table 1 shows the overall 2012 NPS and Department of the Interior
results by item category.
Results of the 2012 EVS indicate that the NPS employees enjoy their work and are
excited about the agency’s mission, but are not as enthusiastic about the availability of processes,
activities, or tools to accomplish their jobs (USOPM, 2012). Interestingly, among the lowest
scores from the 2012 EVS was the employees’ rating of leaders’ generation of high levels of
motivation and commitment. The problem for NPS is to find a way to determine the causes for
low employee satisfaction at each of its parks and to devise plans to improve it.
As a result of the survey indications of low employee job satisfaction, NPS leaders are
highly motivated to improve employee satisfaction to minimize current or future impact on the
organization’s mission (NPS, 2011; NPSAB, 2012). Thus NPS leaders plan to facilitate
exceptional leadership, improving management practices, and strengthening employee
commitment through an interactive process that includes customized assessments tailored to
address effective strategies for communication, effective leadership, and effective career
development (NPS, 2011; NPSAB, 2012).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

13

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

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

14
Statement of the Problem
This current study focuses on the NPS’ concern over low employee satisfaction, which
seems to be worsening over time rather than improving. In 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), nearly 40 percent of employees from the
12 largest departments of the US Government were dissatisfied with their jobs. One of the
bureaus mentioned among those departments 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 139
th
(Repanshek, 2011). In 2011, the NPS was ranked
163rd. By 2012, the NPS dropped to 166th out of 292 bureaus and sub-components surveyed.
These rankings demonstrate that despite the NPS goal of becoming one of the top ten best federal
agencies to work for by 2016 as mentioned earlier (NPS, 2008), the NPS’ employee satisfaction
is only worsening. What this may mean is that the interventions the NPS leadership is currently
using are not working. Moreover, this declining employee satisfaction may eventually translate
into a gradual decline in the quality of NPS service and customer satisfaction, as well as
employee absenteeism and turnover.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine the perceived causes for the NPS employees’
low job satisfaction ratings at one park in particular, Anuenue National Park (ANP). One
method of determining the reason is to explore the gap between current levels of employee job
satisfaction and the NPS target levels of satisfaction using Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis
Model. Specifically, their model analyzes the gap between current levels of behavior and desired
levels. While there are many problem-solving models in existence, the Clark and Estes (2008)
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

15
model is unique in that causes are analyzed and sorted into three categories — knowledge/skills
(K), motivation (M), and/or organizational (O) barriers (together abbreviated KMO) — which
are carefully identified and validated first before the organization moves on to reviewing,
matching, and integrating research-based solutions (again sorted into the KMO categories) to
close the performance gaps and achieve organizational goals. As Clark and Estes (2008) point
out, this process avoids the situation where organizations jump straight from problems to
solutions, without adequately addressing the root causes of the problems, and ending up wasting
thousands of dollars on ineffective programs.
Employing Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model, this study focus on identifying
and validating the possible knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes of the gap between
current employee satisfaction and the NPS leadership’s desired levels, and identifying a
research-based performance improvement course of action.
Study Questions
Using the framework of Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model, this study will
attempt to answer the following questions:
1. What are the perceived knowledge, motivation, and organization causes of low
employee satisfaction at the NPS, and in particular, at ANP?
2. Based on the findings to the first research question, what are the recommended
solutions to address these perceived causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
First, this study focuses primarily on ANP employees’ perceptions of the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational barriers as possible causes of low employee satisfaction. Second,
once the causes of low employee satisfaction are thoroughly researched and validated, research-
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

16
based solutions addressing these causes are proposed. Third, a process for evaluating the
effectiveness of these implemented solutions is presented.
Importance of the Study
This current case study will explore the possible knowledge, motivation, and organization
causes of low employee satisfaction at ANP. Specifically, using the framework of Clark and
Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model could help ANP identify possible causes of low employee
satisfaction ratings and provide the insight necessary to close gap between the current and
desired levels of employee satisfaction. Ultimately, the primary goal is to help ANP improve
employee job satisfaction and, in turn, maximize the potential of the organization to continue to
accomplish its goals and mission set forth by the NPS and the Department of the Interior
leadership.
Overview of the Dissertation
This dissertation is divided into six chapters. The first chapter provides an introduction
and overview of the problem. It introduces the role of employee satisfaction in an organization’s
success and the challenge the NPS is facing of determining the causes and solutions for low
employee satisfaction ratings. It also introduces the purpose of this study: to explore possible
causes and solutions for the low NPS employee satisfaction ratings at ANP.
Chapter 2 provides a literature review to discuss what is known about the causes of
employee satisfaction levels and their effects on organizations. In particular, four main variables
impact employee satisfaction: self-efficacy, communication, leadership, and accountability.
Furthermore, a synthesis of the literature of presumed causes for low employee satisfaction at the
NPS and ANP will conclude this chapter.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

17
Chapter 3 presents a detailed discussion of the methodology used for the study.
Specifically, this chapter focuses on the Gap Analysis Model and describes the steps taken to
identify and validate the assumed causes.
Chapter 4 reports the results of this study at Anuenue National Park, particularly the
findings of the perceived causes of low employee satisfaction. Chapter 5 includes a discussion
of research-based solutions to the perceived causes of low employee satisfaction and proposes an
integrated implementation plan. Finally, Chapter 6 presents the proposed evaluation plan and
discusses the conclusions of this study, starting with a synthesis of the results; the strengths and
weaknesses of the approach applied; the limitations of this study; proposals for future research;
and finally, implications and overall conclusions.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

18
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Chapter 1 was an introduction to the problem of low employee satisfaction at the
National Park Service (NPS), and at Anuenue National Park (ANP) in particular. Studies
mentioned in Chapter 1 indicated that low employee satisfaction is associated with impact on a
number of areas in an organization, such as quality service, customer satisfaction, productivity,
employee absenteeism, and turnover. In contrast to what employee satisfaction might impact,
this chapter will focus on what variables might impact employee satisfaction, or, in the language
of Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model, what the literature suggests are the assumed
causes of low employee satisfaction. First, a literature review addressing four main factors that
contribute to low job satisfaction will be discussed: (a) efficacy; (b) communication;
(c) leadership; and (d) accountability. While each of these variables are introduced, connections
will be made to Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model, which sorts causes into
knowledge, motivation, and organization categories. Second, a synthesis of the literature of
presumed causes for low employee satisfaction at the NPS and ANP will conclude this chapter.
Factors that Influence Employee Satisfaction
Over thirty years ago, Downs and Hain (1982) described employee satisfaction as not
being a clear-cut concept, but rather a complex construct. Today, the construct still remains
complex with multiple influencing and varying factors — some of which researchers are aware
and some of which are still not fully understood. Part of the problem is that understanding
employee satisfaction requires a breadth and depth of knowledge.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

19
What we do know is that employee satisfaction is an emotional state that results from
one’s job experiences, which can include anything encountered in the working environment
(Pincus, 2006). As Ellickson (2002) points out, “The more a person’s work environment fulfills
his or her needs, values or personal characteristics, the greater the degree of job satisfaction”
(p. 344). Four variables in particular (self-efficacy, communication, leadership, and
accountability) have a strong impact on employee satisfaction and lack in any of these four areas
will henceforth be referred to as the primary assumed causes for low employee satisfaction. The
importance of employee satisfaction lies in its potentially predictive relationship to job
performance (Saari & Judge, 2004).
This following section will be a discussion of four main variables that impact employee
satisfaction, how they might be manifested in employee behaviors and consequences, and how
they might be classified as knowledge, motivation, or organizational concerns under Clark and
Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model. As a useful cross reference, Appendix B is a summary of the
literature and encapsulates the ensuing discussion in table form.
Self-Efficacy
Out of the primary assumed causes for low employee satisfaction, the lack of self-
efficacy (typically considered a motivation gap within the Gap Analysis Model), is an
appropriate place to start because it looks at the individual employee and what factors might play
a role in determining what Collins (2001) refers to as organizations having “the right people on
the bus” (p. 13), a phrase that refers to the goodness of fit between organizations and their
employees. Self-efficacy is a construct that has roots in Bandura’s (1997a) socio-cognitive
model. This construct can be defined as an individual’s beliefs about his or her competence and
capability to complete a task or handle environmental demands (Nielsen, Yarker, Randall, &
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

20
Munir, 2009). Bandura (1997a) further explained self-efficacy in the work place as one’s own
self-assessment of his or her ability to cope with the demands of the job, given the resources he
or she already possesses. In essence, self-efficacy is when an employee is confident in his or her
own ability to complete a task. A worker might have high self-efficacy in one task but low self-
efficacy in another task. Ultimately, self-efficacy often depends on a person’s knowledge and
training in specific skills.
Benefits of high self-efficacy are multi-faceted and include both occupational and health
benefits. Many researchers agree that self-efficacy is linked to employee satisfaction (Caprara,
Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca, 2003; Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca & Malone, 2006; Federici &
Skaalvik, 2012; Gardner & Pierce, 1998; Judge & Bono, 2001; Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Klassen,
Usher, & Bong, 2010; Luthans, Zhu, & Avolio, 2005; Nielsen et al., 2009; Zellars, Hochwarter,
Perrewe, Miles, & Kiewitz, 2001). Employees who have high self-efficacy tend to identify with
the organization and have a higher commitment level to the organization (Federici & Skaalvik,
2012; Luthans et al., 2005). Furthermore, Caprara et al. (2003) discovered that collective group
efficacy contributed significantly to employee satisfaction.
Self-efficacy also tends to have a positive effect on attitudes and behaviors (Gardner &
Pierce, 1998). By and large, employees with higher self-efficacy have better attitudes towards
their jobs and are less prone to burnout (Federici & Skaalvik, 2012; Zellars et al., 2001).
Employees who are not burned out tend to remain in their positions longer. Thus, self-efficacy is
also negatively correlated with turn over (Federici & Skaalvik, 2012; Luthans et al., 2005;
Zellars et al., 2001). Self-efficacy has a positive effect on employee performance (Gardner &
Pierce, 1998). Furthermore, whereas employees with low self-efficacy are largely reactive to
stressful situations, employees with high self-efficacy tend to take proactive approaches, be
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

21
responsible for a broader set of responsibilities (Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, & Primeau, 2001; Parker,
1994), and possess lower depression and anxiety rates (Jex & Bliese, 1999; Stetz, Stetz, &
Bliese, 2006).
Self-efficacy is also correlated with one’s mastery of knowledge and skills (Bandura,
1997b; Peterson & Arnn, 2005). Employees who lack skills necessary for starting and
completing a task tend to suffer from low self-efficacy. Increasing self-efficacy may be as
simple as providing training to increase knowledge, which in turn will increase self-efficacy.
Additionally, supervisors need to have an understanding of the importance of this characteristic
in employees in order to take measures to improve employee self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy is also related to motivation (Bandura, 1997b; Cherian & Jacob, 2013). An
employee who does not have the confidence to handle the demands of tasks is less likely to want
to begin such tasks. On the other hand, employees with enough self-efficacy to begin tasks may
not have sufficient confidence required to be persistent and complete the task. Employees may
also lack a specific skill necessary to complete a particular task, which then plays a role in the
level of self-efficacy the employee has in regards to beginning and persisting. An employee with
high self-efficacy is more likely to be motivated to complete a task. Self-efficacy can be
encouraged with supportive relationships that model attitudes and strategies for problem solving,
and offer employees additional coping resources (Bandura, 2000a, 2000b). Based on supportive
relationships boosting self-efficacy, positive correlations have been found between
transformational leadership (an empowering form of leadership style discussed in detail later in
this chapter) and self-efficacy (Kark & van Dijk, 2007; Schyns, 2001).
As a useful cross reference, Appendix B (Table B1) is a summary of the literature and
encapsulates the ensuing discussion in table form. In utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

22
Analysis Model, strengths and challenges that arise regarding efficacy all fall under the “M”
category for “motivation.” Positive behaviors and consequences that one might expect to see
when there is a combination of high employee efficacy and high employee satisfaction include
(a) that the most talented employees are attracted, engaged, and retained (Buckingham &
Coffman, 1999); (b) that employees have a desire to learn new knowledge and skills (Mayer,
2011); (c) that employees feel supported by their colleagues and leaders (Canrinus, Helms-
Lorenz, Beijaard, Buitink, & Hofman, 2012); (d) that employees feel they are capable of
successfully performing their responsibilities (Caprara et al., 2003; Caprara et al., 2006; Judge &
Bono, 2001; Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Luthans et al., 2005; Zellars et al., 2001); (e) that leaders
believe their employees are capable of successfully performing their responsibilities (Federici &
Skaalvik, 2012); and (f) that employees have a collective organizational-based self-esteem and
confidence that they can succeed together (Gardner & Pierce, 1998; Klassen et al., 2010; Nielsen
et al., 2009; Zellars et al., 2001).
On the other hand, negative behaviors and consequences that one might expect to see
when there is a combination of low employee efficacy and low employee satisfaction include:
lower motivation to perform one’s responsibilities due to high job stress, poor working
conditions, inadequate preparation time, heavy workloads, excessive demands from management
and colleagues, changing policies, and lack of recognition (Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Klassen et al.,
2010).
Communication
Communication can be viewed as a second building block variable in employee
satisfaction that connects the individual employee to leadership and an organization. Likewise,
the lack of effective communication is a second assumed cause for low employee satisfaction,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

23
and can be due to a knowledge, motivation, or organization issue within the Gap Analysis
Model. Communication can be defined as “a vehicle for dissemination of information,
instruction, and affect” (McCroskey, Richmond, & Davis, 1982, p. 173).
Communication in an organization is a multi-faceted construct. Favorable
communication with employees tends to increase employee satisfaction and performance
(Ainspan & Dell, 2000). There are two major components in the art of communication:
informational and relational dimensions. Pincus (2006) explains the importance of both
dimensions, but found the relational component to have a stronger positive correlation with
employee satisfaction.
Informational dimension. What particular information is provided to employees and
the method by which the information is provided to them can have an impact on employee
satisfaction. The informational dimension is focused on the satisfaction of the content and flow
of information in the overall organization and is characterized by media quality, organizational
integration, and organizational perspective (Pincus, 2006). Media quality involves
communication to subordinates using various technologies, such as newsletters, e-mail,
webinars, and webcasts (Pincus, 2006). Organizational integration is referred to as information
that is job-related, such as job requirements (Pincus, 2006). Organizational perspective has to do
with what information gets disseminated organization-wide, such as corporate policies (Pincus,
2006).
Employee satisfaction can also be affected by the feedback an employee receives from
his or her supervisor. Personal feedback can be defined as the information provided to an
employee from a supervisor regarding performance judgments and efforts recognition (Pincus,
2006). Andrews and Kacmar (2001) reported the effects of receiving feedback in large
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

24
quantities to be largely useful and consistent. Such results included that employees reported
more job involvement, less stress, less uncertainty and overall higher employee satisfaction
(Andrews & Kacmar, 2001).
Relational dimension. Building close working relationships is central to increasing
communication, which in turn relates to improving employee satisfaction. This relational aspect
also involves communication satisfaction with other members of the organization, such as one’s
coworkers (Pincus, 2006).
Top-level management communication is significantly related to employee satisfaction
(Pincus, 2006). Such top-level management communication refers to the two-way
communication between top executives and the rest of the members of the organization, as
compared to mid-level managers or immediate supervisors (Pincus, 2006). Kim (2002) reported
satisfaction as being related to employees’ perceptions of whether or not they have input into
their organization’s strategic planning. Such perceptions of top-level management
communication can also influence employee satisfaction (Pincus, 2006).
Communication between immediate supervisors and employees is particularly important
when it comes to employee satisfaction. Such communication tends to have the strongest link to
employee satisfaction (Pincus, 2006). Effective supervisor-employee communication is
premised upon both physical presence and frequency. Miles, Patrick, and King (1996) found
that superior-subordinate communication correlates with employee satisfaction. Jo and Shim
(2005) and Hargie, Tourish, and Wilson (2002) pointed out the importance of face-to-face
superior-subordinate communication. Jo and Shim (2005) also discovered that useful
information is best communicated to employees straight from supervisors to employees,
compared to the use of media methods, such as publications, newsletters or video messages.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

25
Hargie et al. (2002) explained that employees’ preferred source of information tends to be face-
to-face communication with their immediate supervisors. Johlke and Duhan (2000) discovered
two-way discussions between subordinate and superior leads to a clearer understanding of one’s
job duties. Jo and Shim (2005) concurred and reported face-to-face interactions were linked to
more useful information shared with employees. Johlke and Duhan (2000) also found that the
frequency of supervisor-employee communication was positively related with employee
satisfaction. Thomas, Zolin and Hartman (2009) further reported that the quality of information
shared with subordinates tends to be more important than the amount or adequacy of
information.
Closely tied to communication, trust in superiors is a strong predictor of employee
satisfaction (Pettit, Goris, & Vaught, 1997). Jo and Shim (2005) found a strong positive
correlation between trusting relationships and relational communication. They discovered that
managers who use interpersonal communication with employees tend to have more trusting
relationships. Employees are more likely to perceive a trusting relationship when interpersonal
communication was experienced from superiors in the form of useful instruction or helpful
advice (Jo & Shim, 2005). When superiors persist in building interpersonal relationships by
communicating, positive outcomes regarding trust are more likely to occur. For example, when
superiors communicate useful advice and when organizational news is shared, employees are
more likely to perceive a trusting relationship (Jo & Shim, 2005). Facilitating conversations
between employees and superiors enabled closer relationships to be built (Jo & Shim, 2005).
Supervisors cannot create the type of trusting interpersonal relationships that Jo and Shim
(2005) discovered unless they possess the knowledge and ability to communicate appropriately.
Madlock (2008) found a strong correlation between supervisor communicator competence and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

26
employee communication satisfaction. According to Spitzberg (1983), communicator
competence includes knowledge, motivation, skill, behavior and effectiveness. Interactions
require a keen ability to communicate goals while also maintaining interpersonal and
conversational norms (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1981). Cushman and Craig (1976) explained that
communication involves competencies in both listening and negotiating. Salacuse (2007)
concurred by adding that today’s workforce employs more educated employees with higher
intelligences, requiring superiors to lead by their abilities to negotiate. Furthermore, in order for
leaders to convince employees to follow an organization’s vision, effective communication is
paramount. Stohl (1984) explained that language, gestures, and voice are all part of a
communicator’s competency. Shaw (2005) further explains that for employees to perceive
supervisors as competent communicators, information must be shared and responded to in a
timely manner, actively listening to other points of view, communicating clearly and concisely
with all levels in the organization, and making use of various communication channels.
Wheeless, Wheeless, and Howard (1984) concurred with the importance of supervisors’
communication skills but also found a special importance of the supervisors’ abilities to be
receptive to employees. This receptivity involves being flexible and tolerant while listening to
feedback and being open to ideas, opinions, suggestions and innovations from employees
(Wheeless et al., 1984). When supervisors display such receptivity, a resultant sense of empathy,
consideration, care and concern emerge that are keys to building relationships with employees
leading to employee satisfaction. Based on their studies of communication and decision
participation in relation to employee satisfaction, Wheeless et al. (1984) recommended that
supervisors receive training to acquire conversation skills and become more perceptive.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

27
Communication in an organization is not limited to communication between employees
and leaders. In addition, communication amongst fellow employees is also important.
Horizontal communication describes a more informal communication with peers that can include
information heard through casual conversations (Pincus, 2006). Furthermore, horizontal
communication entails the degree to which information is accurately communicated and how that
information flows through an organization. Thomas et al. (2009) explained that organizational
openness (the degree of willingness employees feel free to exchange ideas) is positively
correlated to trust and involvement between peers, supervisors and top management.
Issues in communication are typically linked to knowledge, motivation, and
organizational causes. If they are lacking in knowledge or ability, supervisors must be trained in
how to communicate in such a way that not only effectively disseminates information, but also
promotes trust. Supervisors who are effective communicators tend to motivate their employees
better than supervisors who are poor communicators. Organizational culture also plays a big role
in communication. Effective communication can be made a part of the organizational culture by
establishing frequent face-to-face conversations as part of the normal routine between
supervisors and their employees.
As a useful cross reference, Appendix B (Table B2) is a summary of the literature and
encapsulates the ensuing discussion in table form. In utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap
Analysis Model, strengths and challenges that arise regarding communication can potentially fall
under any of the three options, K-M-O. Positive behaviors and consequences under “K” for
leaders’ knowledge that one might expect to see when there is a combination of good
communication and high employee satisfaction might include (a) a flow of quality and quantity
of information (Hargie et al., 2002; Johlke & Duhan, 2000; Thomas et al., 2009); (b) that such
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

28
communication includes utilizing face-to-face and various other communication channels
(Hargie et al., 2002; Shaw, 2005); (c) that trust is built by positive interpersonal communication,
useful instruction, and helpful advice (Hargie et al., 2002; Jo & Shim, 2005; Miles et al., 1996;
Thomas et al., 2009); (d) that leaders demonstrate communicator competence, including active
listening skills, negotiation skills, and timely, clear, and concise communication (Madlock, 2008;
Shaw, 2005); (e) that leaders seek suggestions from employees regarding important decisions
and show a genuine interest in relating to them (Miles et al., 1996); and (f) that leaders provide
job-relevant communication on feedback, rules, policies, job instructions, assignments,
schedules, and goals (Miles et al., 1996).
Positive behaviors and consequences under “M” for employees’ motivation that one
might expect to see when there is a combination of good communication and high employee
satisfaction might include that leaders are approachable and have extraverted temperaments
which encourage employees to ask them for feedback and guidance when necessary (Porter,
Wrench, & Hoskinson, 2007).
Positive behaviors and consequences under “O” for organization that one might expect to
see when there is a combination of good communication and high employee satisfaction might
include (a) that performance feedback from leaders and supervisors is treated as vital (Andrews
& Kacmar, 2001; Clampitt & Downs, 1993; Pincus, 2006); (b) that employee feedback and
suggestions are valued by leadership (Johlke & Duhan, 2000); (c) that leaders practice
participative management which allows all employees to be involved in information-processing,
decision-making, and problem-solving (Kim, 2002; Wheeless et al., 1984); (d) that leaders
habitually provide their employees with appropriate and accurate information (Pettit et al., 1997);
(e) that supervisors with approachable and extraverted temperaments are promoted to positions
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

29
of leadership within the organization (Porter et al., 2007); and (f) that there is a communication
climate of leadership openness to such a degree that supervisors listen to employees’ concerns
and employees feel comfortable respectfully questioning and disagreeing with their supervisors
(Miles et al., 1996; Pincus, 2006).
On the other hand, negative behaviors and consequences that one might expect to see
when there is a combination of poor communication and low employee satisfaction include the
opposite of what was discussed above. Under “K” for knowledge, leaders might lack effective
communication skills. Under “M” for motivation, leaders may be introverted and highly
neurotic to such a degree that dissuades employees from approaching them and asking them for
feedback and guidance when necessary (Porter et al., 2007). Under “O” for organization, there
may be a culture that is lacking in communication that does not provide an atmosphere of
ongoing feedback and open communication from and with the leadership.
Leadership
Leadership is a third major variable in employee satisfaction which connects the previous
two variables, the employee’s self-efficacy, and the leaders’ and organization’s communication.
Similarly, the lack of effective leadership can also be viewed as a third major assumed cause for
low employee satisfaction, typically considered a motivation cause within Clark and Estes’
(2008) Gap Analysis Model.
Leadership behaviors. Prior to the 1950s, research on managerial leadership focused on
finding patterns of personal traits within successful leaders (Fernandez, 2008). However in the
1950s, inconsistent and weak discoveries resulted in focusing towards researching behaviors
rather than traits of effective leadership (Fernandez, 2008). This shift was led by researchers at
Ohio State University who identified two main categories of leadership behavior: task-oriented
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

30
and relations-oriented behavior (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2002) while also creating two even broader
categories: initiating structure and consideration behavior (Fernandez, 2008). In addition, around
the same time researchers at the University of Michigan similarly found two dimensions of
leadership behavior: employee-oriented and production-oriented behavior (Fernandez, 2008).
Categories and dimensions identified by researchers at Ohio State University and the
University of Michigan seemed to align well. Leaders who exhibit task-oriented, production-
oriented and initiating structure behaviors are more concerned about accomplishing the work
involved in a job setting, while leaders who tend to show more relations-oriented, employee-
oriented or consideration behavior show more concern for building relationships and showing
care for employees.
Showing care for employees. Behavior that shows care for employees fosters a
harmonious and emotionally supportive work environment, which in turn leads to higher levels
of employee satisfaction and motivation (Fernandez, 2008). Leaders show concern for
employees by being friendly and providing them with emotional support (Fernandez, 2008).
Leaders can create open channels of communication by listening to subordinates and keeping
them informed (Fernandez, 2008). Employees also feel cared for when leaders involve
employees in decision making by consulting with them and taking their advice (Fernandez, 2008;
Fleishman & Harris, 1962). Supportive behaviors also include providing recognition,
appreciation, and feedback to employees (Fernandez, 2008; Fleishman & Harris, 1962).
Demonstrating confidence and trust in subordinates and allowing them discretion also are
expected to have a positive effect on employee satisfaction (Fleishman & Harris, 1962).
Employees who perceive their leaders to be helpful and emotionally supportive tend to be more
likely to rate their leaders as effective, which increases employee satisfaction (Bass, 1990).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

31
Care for tasks. Initiating structure behavior is defined as behaviors that demonstrate that
the leader is concerned about accomplishing group goals (Fernandez, 2008). Furthermore,
initiating structure behavior helps define and organize group activities (Fernandez, 2008). Such
behaviors include goal setting, defining roles of subordinates, directing and coordinating
subordinate activities, keeping open communication, stressing deadlines, ensuring consent with
procedures, monitoring progress towards goals, and identifying and solving problems
(Fernandez, 2008). Production-oriented leaders concentrate efforts on task completion by setting
goals, planning and organizing work for employees, supervising employees, and obtaining
resources for tasks (Fernandez, 2008).
Researchers at Ohio State University found the categories to be independent of each
other: a leader could score high in one category and low in another and vice versa (Fernandez,
2008). However, many effective leaders were observed to display both types of behaviors.
Blake and Mouton (1964) concurred and offered that highly effective leaders tend to spend their
time building relationships with employees while also ensuring that tasks are completed. Other
research demonstrates both types of behavior intermingle and affect employee performance,
perceptions of their leader, and employee satisfaction (Fernandez, 2008).
Development-oriented leadership behavior. In addition to concern for tasks and
relations, a third type of leader behavior is development-oriented behavior, which was more
recently identified (Fernandez, 2008). Yukl, Gordon, and Taber (2002) similarly described three
categories of leadership: task, relations, and change behavior. Development-oriented behavior
encourages employee experimentation, innovation, and organizational change (Ekvall &
Arvonen, 1991; Lindell & Rosenqvist, 1992). Fernandez (2008) also pointed out that such
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

32
leaders monitor the external environment, create a vision for change, and take personal risks to
bring about change.
Transformational leadership. Demonstrating concern for employees, tasks, and change
are positive behaviors of effective leaders. Nevertheless, transformational leadership takes
leading others to a higher level. Essentially, transformational leaders create positive and
valuable changes in those they lead (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational leaders not only
create change within their followers, but they also transform followers into fellow leaders by
changing their employees’ perceptions, values, expectations, and aspirations (Burns, 1978).
Change is even more significant and transforms organizations as well as employees.
Transformational leadership requires a leader to utilize his or her personality traits and abilities
to create change by modeling, articulating an invigorating vision, and designing challenging
goals (Bass, 1998). Additionally, transformational leaders transform followers’ values to
become aligned with organizational goals, successfully convincing them of the importance of
attaining organizational outcomes (Bass, 1998).
With transformational leadership, both leaders and followers work collaboratively
together to increase levels of motivation and morale in one another (Burns, 1978). Moreover,
transformational leaders promote a sense of community amongst their followers. Employees
help one another out, encourage each other, and have harmony among themselves (Bass &
Riggio, 2006). Additionally, transformational leaders empower, inspire, motivate, enhance
morale and performance, and encourage growth of their followers. Research in the past thirty
years has supported transformational leadership, because it is shown to have positive effects on
organizational outcomes (Bass & Bass, 2008). Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Boomer (1996)
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

33
found that followers of transformational leaders not only surpass projected performance but
employee satisfaction increased as well as organizational commitment.
Transformational leadership has four components: idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration.
Idealized influence. Idealized influence starts with creating trust between leaders and
followers. Trust is one of the most critical aspects in creating successful transformational leaders
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Yukl, 2002). The initial step towards
creating trust can be a challenging time as followers may feel uncertain, anxious, and fearful
(Kotter, 1996). Transformational leaders conduct themselves in such a way that respects, admires
and trusts followers in order to obtain idealized influence (Bass, 1998). Trust is developed when
followers see leaders behave as role models who relentlessly do what is right and exhibit high
moral and ethical standards in their actions (Bass, 1998). Transformational leaders also take
risks, are persistent, and determined (Bass, 1998). Other ways leaders build trust with followers
include expressing concern for followers’ needs, respecting agreements, demonstrating
persistence in achieving the vision, and eagerly sacrificing for the benefit of the group
(Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996).
Inspirational motivation. Communication skills of transformational leaders enable them
to express their vision in such a dynamic way that engages followers (Bass & Bass, 2008). The
ability to communicate vision with attention to quality stimulates followers’ beliefs and values
(Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). When visions are clearly communicated, followers are more
committed in their efforts, have a positive outlook on the future, and strongly believe in their
own capabilities. Creating a shared vision is arguably one of the most important aspects of
transformational leadership (Jung & Avolio, 2000) as a strong sense of purpose is monumental
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

34
for followers to be motivated to act (Bass & Bass, 2008). With a shared vision, transformational
leaders create an atmosphere of enthusiasm and optimism amongst their followers.
Intellectual stimulation. Transformational leaders also create a culture of innovatively
solving problems (Bass, 1998). Followers are challenged to rethink their assumptions, take risks,
and offer suggestions and ideas to leaders (Bass & Bass, 2008). Leaders foster independent
thinkers and promote effective problem-solving. Within such a culture, public criticism is
replaced by private discussion (Bass, 1998).
Individualized consideration. Transformational leaders play the role of mentor in an
effort to individualize attention and assistance to their employees (Bass & Bass, 2008).
Mentoring allows individual employees’ needs to be addressed and opens the doors of
communication between leader and follower. With individualized attention and support,
followers are more likely to achieve more and reach their potential (Bass, 1998). Leaders show
respect and can acknowledge contributions of individual employees.
Effects on performance. Following the discoveries of leadership behaviors by Ohio
State University researchers, studies focused on testing the effects of task-oriented behavior on
group and subordinate performance (Fernandez, 2008).
Bass (1990) concluded that:
Successful task-oriented leaders are instrumental in contributing to their groups’
effectiveness by setting goals, allocating labor, and enforcing sanctions. They initiate
structure for their followers, define the roles of others, explain what to do and why,
establish well-defined patterns of organization and channels of communication, and
determine the ways to accomplish assignments. (p. 472)
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

35
Despite this conclusion, Bass also discovered a widely different outcome of task-oriented
leaders. Subordinates viewed task-oriented leaders as punitive, authoritarian, and detached,
which resulted in a decrease of employee satisfaction.
The literature also suggests development-oriented behavior has varied effects on
organizational outcomes (Fernandez, 2008). Development-oriented behaviors can enable
organizations to become more adaptive and responsive. Leaders engaging in development-
oriented leadership behavior can increase organizational performance by effectively identifying
the best strategies to improve organizations (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991). Moreover, development-
oriented behavior can encourage creativity and innovation amongst employees (Fernandez,
2008).
After reviewing all the findings, Bass (1990) concluded that the most consistent finding
was that relations-oriented behaviors are positively correlated to employee satisfaction. Notably,
Bass discovered evidence that the relationship between task-oriented behavior and job
satisfaction remains mixed. Additionally, while some studies show that task-oriented behaviors
are positively correlated with group productivity, goal achievement and subordinate
performance, some exceptions remain. Lastly, some studies show development-oriented
behaviors are positively correlated with employee perceptions of leader’s effectiveness and
subsequently employee satisfaction (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Lindell & Rosenqvist, 1992).
Organizational problems can exist if an organization’s leaders are perceived to show
more interest in results and do not place value on caring for employees. If the culture of the
organization is focused solely on task accomplishment, a leader within such an organization who
is attempting to care for employees will encounter many barriers en route to becoming a
transformational leader.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

36
As a useful cross reference, Appendix B (Table B3) is a summary of the literature and
encapsulates the ensuing discussion in table form. In utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap
Analysis Model, strengths and challenges that arise regarding leadership all tend to fall under the
“M” category for “motivation.” Positive behaviors and consequences that one might expect to
see when there is a combination of effective leadership and high employee satisfaction include
(a) that leaders utilize a “human resource” (HR) management approach to maximize human
capital and organizational productivity, demonstrating both an interest and a compassion for their
employees’ well-being (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 137); (b) that the leaders are self-aware,
unbiased, confident, hopeful, optimistic, and forward-thinking (Darvish & Rezaei, 2011); (c) that
the leaders show genuine concern for their employees through strong communication skills, such
as actively listening, soliciting and giving feedback, and encouraging creativity and innovation
(Fernandez, 2008; Madlock, 2008); (d) that the leaders collaboratively develop and communicate
a clear organizational vision (Jung & Avolio, 2000); (e) that the leaders are able to manage their
own and their employees’ emotions (Lam & O’Higgins, 2012); (f) that the leaders are positive
role models, exhibiting the same type of moral and responsible behavior they expect from their
employees (Northouse, 2012, p. 200); (g) that the leaders understand and demonstrate how their
good attitudes and moods transfer to the group members (Sy, Cote, & Saavedra, 2005); and
(h) that the leaders empower the employees to develop their full potential, and stress the
importance of group goals, shared beliefs and values, and teamwork (Wang & Howell, 2010).
On the other hand, negative behaviors and consequences that one might expect to see
when there is a combination of ineffective leadership and low employee satisfaction include the
opposite of what was discussed above. Essentially, poor leaders might be characterized as being
poor role models, being self-serving, and lacking in communication skills, self- and group-
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

37
management skills, and controlling rather than empowering in nature, thus leading their
employees to be de-motivated in accomplishing their organization’s vision, mission, and goals.
Accountability
Accountability is a fourth major variable in employee satisfaction and ties the other three
variables together. Moreover, the lack of effective accountability can be considered a fourth
major assumed cause for low employee satisfaction, and can be a knowledge, motivation or
organization problem within the Gap Analysis Model. Accountability can be defined as the
employees’ perceptions about the degree to which they will be required to justify their actions at
work to one or more individuals who hold reward or punishment power (Tetlock, 1985; Wood &
Winston, 2005). In organizations, no one is exempt from accountability as customers and the
public have higher demands from organizations, forcing higher-ups to demand more from their
employees. Accountability is so important that in the absence of it, individuals would be able to
do what they wanted, when they wanted to (Hall, Zinko, Perryman, & Ferris, 2009). In addition,
Hall et al. (2009) argue entities could no longer exist and in their place there would be chaos and
social unrest. Interestingly, accountability has the ability to affect employee satisfaction both
positively and negatively.
Types of accountability. There are three types of accountability that are relevant to
employee satisfaction within this study of the NPS: bureaucratic, professional, and reciprocal
accountability. Bureaucratic accountability is most apparent when organizations are compliant,
have smooth running systems and measure success with outcomes (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003).
Henstchke and Wohlstetter (2004) describe the four basic elements of bureaucratic
accountability. First, there is a contractual relationship between two parties. Second, the
provider is held responsible for providing a good or service. Third, the provider’s performance is
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

38
based upon whether or not stated goals are achieved. Finally, there are consequences (rewards or
sanctions) for the performance.
Professional accountability occurs when employees hold one another accountable based
on professional conduct (Burke, 2005). The responsibility of professional conduct shifts from
employer to either the development of a professional code of conduct, a professional board or a
professional learning community. For example, lawyers belong to their own professional boards
which establish ethical codes of conduct and can issue censure to or even revoke licenses of
those who violate their standards. In this model, employees help each other by encouraging
professional conduct (Burke, 2005). However, Stetcher and Kirby (2004) point out that leaders’
expertise in professional standards and practices can also help meet their employees’ needs.
A third type of accountability is reciprocal accountability. For every increment of
performance demanded from the employee, an employer has an equal responsibility to provide
the employee with the capacity to meet that expectation (Elmore, 2002). Likewise, for every
investment the employer makes in an employee’s skill and knowledge, the employee has a
reciprocal responsibility to demonstrate some new increment in performance. As Elmore (2002)
points out, “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). In essence, leaders hold
themselves accountable for equipping their employees with requisite knowledge and skills to be
successful prior to holding the employees accountable for their performance.
Accountability and employee satisfaction. Due to tighter budgets and a growing public
awareness of whether or not money is spent efficiently and effectively, public employee
organizations are increasingly being held accountable under initiatives such as the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 and Managing for Results (MFR) initiatives (Bolton, 2003;
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

39
Yang & Kassekert, 2009). Similar to the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 in K-12
public education, where organizational targets and consequences are built in, other accountability
models include Evidence Based Management (Briggs & McBeath, 2009), High Performance
Work Systems (Danford, Richardson, Stewart, Tailby, & Upchurch, 2008), High Performance
Organizations (De Waal, 2007), National Performance Reviews (Fernandez & Moldogaziev,
2011), and Results Based Management (also known as strategic management), performance-
based management, outcome management, and New Public Management (Swiss, 2005).
Previously, MFR-like programs have been found to have mixed and somewhat
inconclusive results (Danford et al., 2008; Swiss, 2005). More recently however, researchers are
beginning to discover a more complex relationship between accountability, employee
satisfaction, and performance. What they are finding is that there are mediating variables, such
as organizational citizenship behavior and reputation (Hall et al., 2009), and trust in leadership
and perception of performance appraisal (Yang & Kassekert, 2009) that help determine whether
there is a positive or inverse relationship between accountability and employee
satisfaction/performance.
What Yang and Kassekert (2009) and other researchers are beginning to discover is that
depending on the type of leadership, communication style, the closeness of relationships between
supervisor and employee and employee with other employees, and the corresponding type of
appraisal system, there was either a positive or negative effect on employee satisfaction and
productivity. When combining a MFR-like accountability system with a collaborative leadership
style characterized by trust, open communication and feedback, closeness with supervisor and
co-workers, and clear goals and expectations, then employee satisfaction and productivity tends
to be higher (Yang & Kassekert, 2009).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

40
On the other hand, when combining a MFR-like accountability system with an
authoritarian or abusive leadership style that is characterized by a lack of trust, lack of
communication and feedback, distance from supervisor and co-workers, and unclear goals and
expectations, then employee satisfaction and productivity tends to be lower (Breaux, Perrewe,
Hall, Frink, & Hochwarter, 2008; Kranz, 2012).
Hall et al. (2009) discovered that effective accountability led to high participation in
citizenship-type behavior, which added to task performance and satisfaction through reputation.
The implication for organizations is to find the fine line that allows some level of accountability
but not too much which will result in dysfunctional outcomes for employees. In short, more
accountability is not always better. Thoms, Dose and Scott (2002) also found a significant
relationship between accountability and job satisfaction. These researchers pointed to the
awareness of coworkers and managers of an employee’s work as the most important part of
accountability. Managers who are trying to improve accountability can include awareness of
quality and quantity of work completed in order to improve job satisfaction.
As a useful cross reference, Appendix B (Table B4) is a summary of the literature and
encapsulates the ensuing discussion in table form. In utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap
Analysis Model, strengths and challenges that arise regarding accountability can potentially fall
under any of the three options, K-M-O. Positive behaviors and consequences under “K” for
leaders’ knowledge that one might expect to see when there is a combination of effective
accountability and high employee satisfaction might include (a) leaders providing access to job-
related knowledge and skills (Ellickson, 2002; Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2011); (b) leaders
providing timely and accurate feedback about performance (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2011;
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

41
McKnight, Ahmad, & Schroeder, 2001); and (c) leaders providing an atmosphere of trust and an
awareness of employee performance (Thoms et al., 2002).
Positive behaviors and consequences under “M” for employees’ motivation that one
might expect to see when there is a combination of effective accountability and high employee
satisfaction might include (a) that employees’ talents are fully utilized (DeSantis & Durst, 1996);
(b) that healthy social relationships amongst co-workers exist (DeSantis & Durst, 1996); (c) that
employees feel they are adequately compensated for their work (Durst & DeSantis, 1997;
Ellickson, 2002); and (d) that employees identify with the mission of the organization (Harrison,
Newman, & Roth, 2006; Westover & Taylor, 2010).
Positive behaviors and consequences under “O” for organization that one might expect to
see when there is a combination of effective accountability and high employee satisfaction might
include (a) that there is a participative style of leadership that allows for close relationships
between employees and their leaders (Breaux et al., 2008; Ellickson, 2002; Kim, 2002;
McKnight et al., 2001); (b) that employees perceive their pay to be adequate (Durst & DeSantis,
1997; Ellickson, 2002); (c) that promotions and rewards are merit-based (Ellickson, 2002; Swiss,
2005; Yang & Kassekert, 2009); (d) that the leaders have established a culture of reciprocal
accountability, where they first hold themselves accountable to the same standards, providing
their employees with adequate training and resources to ensure success (Elmore, 2002); (e) that
there is a clarity of goals and expectations (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2011); (f) that leaders
habitually attend to recognizing employee performance levels and achievements (Fernandez &
Moldogaziev, 2011); (g) that leaders are flexible with regard to granting employees discretion to
change work processes (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2011); and (h) that leaders lead by example,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

42
modeling the type of accountable behavior they expect from the employees (Yang & Kassekert,
2009).
On the other hand, negative behaviors and consequences that one might expect to see
when there is a combination of ineffective accountability and low employee satisfaction include
the opposite of what was discussed above. Negative behaviors and consequences under “K” for
leaders’ knowledge that one might expect to see when there is a combination of ineffective
accountability and low employee satisfaction might include (a) leaders not providing access to
job-related knowledge and skills (Ellickson, 2002; Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2011); (b) leaders
not providing timely and accurate feedback about performance (Fernandez & Moldogaziev,
2011; McKnight et al., 2001); and (c) leaders not providing an atmosphere of trust and an
awareness of employee performance (Thoms et al., 2002).
Negative behaviors and consequences under “M” for employees’ motivation that one
might expect to see when there is a combination of ineffective accountability and low employee
satisfaction might include (a) that employees’ talents are not fully utilized (DeSantis & Durst,
1996); (b) that unhealthy social relationships amongst co-workers exist (DeSantis & Durst,
1996); (c) that employees do not feel they are adequately compensated for their work (Durst &
DeSantis, 1997; Ellickson, 2002); and (d) that employees do not identify with the mission of the
organization (Harrison et al., 2006; Westover & Taylor, 2010).
Negative behaviors and consequences under “O” for organization that one might expect
to see when there is a combination of ineffective accountability and low employee satisfaction
might include (a) that there is an abusive style of leadership that does not allow for close
relationships between employees and their leaders (Breaux et al., 2008; Ellickson, 2002; Kim,
2002; McKnight et al., 2001); (b) that employees perceive their pay to be inadequate (Durst &
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

43
DeSantis, 1997; Ellickson, 2002); (c) that promotions and rewards are not merit-based but are
rather political and based on favoritism (Ellickson, 2002; Swiss, 2005; Yang & Kassekert, 2009);
(d) that the leaders have not established a culture of reciprocal accountability, and they are not
first holding themselves accountable to the same standards, failing to provide their employees
with adequate training and resources to ensure success (Elmore, 2002); (e) that there is a lack of
clarity of goals and expectations (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2011); (f) that leaders fail to
habitually attend to recognizing employee performance levels and achievements (Fernandez &
Moldogaziev, 2011); (g) that leaders are inflexible to granting employees discretion to change
work processes (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2011); and (h) that leaders fail to lead by example,
not modeling the type of accountable behavior they expect from the employees (Yang &
Kassekert, 2009).
Summary
While Chapter 1 focused on what employee satisfaction impacts (quality service,
customer satisfaction, productivity, employee absenteeism, and turnover), Chapter 2 focused on
what factors influence employee satisfaction (primarily the quality of self-efficacy,
communication, leadership, and accountability).
Clark and Estes (2008) provide a conceptual framework from which we can see that the
NPS leadership (and ANP leadership in particular) has a goal to improve low employee
satisfaction, such that the NPS leaders hope their bureau will become one of the top 10 federal
agencies at which to work by the year 2016. The Gap Analysis Model will be utilized to identify
possible knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that might possibly be preventing high
employee satisfaction from occurring within the NPS, and specifically at ANP. Such gaps may
occur within any of the four major variables that impact employee satisfaction, manifesting
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

44
themselves as behaviors and consequences in the literature as described in Appendix B. The four
charts in Appendix B will be used as a checklist to identify challenges to employee satisfaction at
ANP.
As we have seen, employee satisfaction is impacted by four major variables: (1) efficacy,
(2) communication, (3) leadership, and (4) accountability. Essentially, employee satisfaction
tends to be higher when employees are self-motivated and efficacious; when there is consistent,
frequent, and open communication, feedback, and trust between leaders at all levels of an
organization and their employees; when there is collaborative, empowering, transformational
leadership; and when there is a fair, reciprocal accountability system in place with clearly stated
goals, expectations, and consequences. On the other hand, four primary assumed causes for low
employee satisfaction are a lack of self-efficacy, lack of effective communication, lack of
effective leadership, and lack of effective accountability. A summary of the assumed causes
from the review of the literature, categorized by KMO, is listed in Appendix B. Below, these
four elements have been aligned with the knowledge, motivation and organizational barriers in
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model (Table 2). The literature suggests that while
communication and accountability are associated with knowledge, motivation and organizational
causes of low employee satisfaction; efficacy and leadership are associated with motivation.
This study focused on the low employee satisfaction levels at ANP, as evidenced using
data from the 2012 EVS survey results, facilitated employee session observations, document
analysis of employee action plans, and employee interviews. Possible causes and solutions for
the gap between the current level of satisfaction at ANP and the NPS’ desired level will be
explored within the framework of Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

45
Table 2
Four Elements as Related to Gap Analysis Framework
Knowledge Motivation Organizational
Communication X X X
Efficacy X
Leadership X
Accountability X X X

While the EVS results can provide quantitative data to tell us “what” the perceived causes
for low employee satisfaction are, Chapter 3 will propose a qualitative analysis to help examine
the “why” of the perceived causes of low employee satisfaction at ANP. Chapter 3 will also
detail the sample and population, methodology, and data analysis of this study.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

46
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Statement of the Problem
As mentioned in Chapter 2, the National Park Service (NPS) has been administering and
tracking the results of the Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) every year since 2002 to identify
organizational strengths and improvement needs. The NPS leadership stated goal is to become
one of the top ten best places to work for in the Federal Government by 2016, although due to its
continued downward trend, any improvement upwards would be a promising start. For the NPS
and Anuenue National Park (ANP) in specific, results of the 2012 EVS indicated lower than
desired employee satisfaction ratings (USOPM, 2012). Concerned about the possible negative
impact these ratings could have on current and future mission successes, NPS leadership is
interested in discovering the possible causes and research-based solutions to these low ratings.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model will be applied to identify the causes and solutions
and will be useful in helping the ANP workforce achieve its goal in closing the existing
employee satisfaction gap.
Purpose of the Study/Study Questions
The purpose of this study is to assist ANP leadership in identifying the perceived causes
for low employee satisfaction within ANP, and then based on these findings to propose relevant,
research-based solutions. Utilizing the conceptual framework of Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap
Analysis Model, the inquiry questions that framed this study are:
1. What are the perceived knowledge, motivation, and organization causes of low
employee satisfaction at the NPS, and in particular, at ANP?
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

47
2. Based on the findings to the first research question, what are the recommended
solutions to address these perceived causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
This chapter will detail the study’s methodology, sample, and data analysis.
Site Selection
For this study, the unit of analysis is one park, Anuenue National Park (ANP). ANP was
one of three sites selected regionally based on the recommendation of their regional director,
who considered scores and the parks’ openness to the process. In all, 24 sites were selected by
NPS leadership to begin addressing declining employee satisfaction, in collaboration with the
NPS’ Workplace Enrichment and Learning and Development offices.
This particular study reports upon a park that spans approximately 5,360 acres of land,
includes five sites each with a unique historical context, has 78 employees, and serves over
685,000 visitors annually, henceforth referred to by pseudonym as Anuenue (Hawaiian for
“Rainbow”) National Park (ANP). ANP’s primary designation is as a conglomeration of five
historical sites. Park visitors are likely to marvel at the park sites’ scenic beauty as they are to
appreciate learning about the five park sites’ unique histories.
Description of Framework: Gap Analysis Model
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model was selected to assist ANP park leadership
to carefully identify root causes of performance gaps and select appropriate, research-based
solutions. The process involves identifying organizational goals, analyzing the organization’s
current performance, identifying assumed causes and then validating the causes of performance
gaps in order to formulate recommendations and solutions that will likely result in performance
improvement and goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The gap analysis is a
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

48
systemic, cyclical process which examines knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
that contribute to an organization’s performance gap and creates measures to monitor the
effectiveness of the recommended solutions (Rueda, 2011).
The steps of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis process include:
 Step 1: Identifying the goals for the organization and the stakeholders.
 Step 2: Determining the organization’s current performance/achievement level.
 Step 3: Analyzing the organization’s performance gap by examining the difference
between the goal and current performance/achievement.
 Step 4: Identifying assumed causes to identify conditions and perceptions within the
organization.
 Step 5: Validating the causes using research to prove the cause of the performance
gap, making informed recommendations.
 Step 6: Identifying research-based solutions, devising a plan of action, and
implementing the plan.
 Step 7: Evaluating results, tuning the system, and revising goals as needed.
Figure 1 helps illustrate this seven-step gap analysis process in graphic form.
For this study, the results of validating the causes, making informed recommendations for
solutions, and proposing an evaluation system will be addressed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. Here in
Chapter 3, the first four steps of the Gap Analysis Model and the first part of Step 5 will be
discussed.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

49

Figure 1. Gap analysis process

Step 1: Identifying the Goals for the Organization and the Stakeholders
A vital first step for organizations is to formulate goals that connect their vision and
mission to team and individual goals. As Rueda (2011) indicates, goals can be set at three levels:
long-term (“global” goals) which are generally one to five years in timeframe, intermediate
(“subsidiary” goals) which span from either weeks or months, and short-term (“performance”
goals) which can be monitored within hours to weeks. Such goals should be flexible enough to
adapt to changing conditions but also be specific enough to provide daily guidance (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
As Clark and Estes (2008) also point out, when clear goals are absent, employees are
more likely to focus on advancing their own careers rather than on contributing to the
performance of the organization. Moreover, the authors mention that while not all employees
need to be involved in the setting of the goals in order for them to be committed to achieving
them, those that do set the goals should be perceived as being trustworthy, have a compelling
rationale for the goals that are set, express confidence in the employees’ capabilities, and have a
genuine interest in closing the gaps rather than fault finding.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

50
The mission of the NPS is the historical and natural preservation of our national parks.
To achieve this mission and become organizationally effective, an important consideration is the
participatory engagement of one of its primary stakeholders, the NPS employees. A global goal
of the NPS is to become one of the top ten Best Places to Work in the Federal Government by
2016, as measured by employee satisfaction in the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS).
Since the NPS’ ranking has actually declined over the past several years, a more realistic
immediate goal would be to see a reverse in the negative trend and an actual rise in the Best
Places to Work rankings. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the NPS rankings have dropped from 139
th

in 2010, to 163
rd
in 2011, and 166
th
in 2012 out of 292 bureaus and sub-components surveyed.
Step 2: Determining the Organization ’s Current Performance/Achievement Level
After the goals have been set, the next step is to measure current performance levels. As
of 2012, the NPS ranked 166
th
out of 292 federal organizations. Three primary EVS questions
that determine the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government are listed in Table 3.

Table 3
2012 EVS Best Places to Work Individual Item Scores for ANP/NPS/DOI
EVS Survey Items Percent Positive Ratings
Item Statement ANP NPS DOI
#40 I recommend my organization as a good place to work. 69.7% 67.1% 67.9%
#69 Considering everything, how satisfied are you with
your job?
70.0% 65.9% 68.4%
#71 Considering everything, how satisfied are you with
your organization?
54.8% 57.2% 59.4%

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

51
As can be seen from the data, roughly two-thirds of NPS employees recommend the NPS
as a good place to work and are satisfied overall with their jobs. However, roughly only half of
the employees in the NPS and ANP are satisfied with their organization.
Step 3: Analyzing the Organization ’s Performance Gap by Examining the Difference
between the Goal and Current Performance/Achievement
The difference between the goal and the current performance is the achievement gap
(Rueda, 2011). The NPS’ performance gap is to move from the 166th to at least the 10
th
place,
representing a climb of 156 places in 4 years, an approximate average of moving up 40 spots
each year. While the aspirational published goal is to become one of the top best places in the
Federal Government, the practical goal (how NPS leaders would know that interventions are
working) is that any positive improvement in employee satisfaction would mark a change in the
right direction.
EVS results inform the performance gap. Employee satisfaction is critical to an
organization’s ability to achieve its mission. Improving employee satisfaction helps ensure a
motivated, productive workforce. Table 4 presents 2012 EVS category scores for ANP
compared to the NPS and the Department of the Interior (DOI), organized from lowest score to
highest. Appendix C contains a comparison of ANP and NPS 2012 EVS individual item scores.
As can be seen in Table 4, ANP scored below 60% in 10 out of 14 broad categories,
which NPS leaders would consider causes for concern. Furthermore, when examining the
individual EVS items for ANP’s 2012 data, there were 46 out of 84 questions that had scores
below the NPS established threshold of 60% (see Appendix D).

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

52

Table 4
2012 EVS Category Scores (Lowest to Highest) for ANP, NPS & DOI
Percent Positive EVS Score
EVS Category ANP NPS DOI
Performance-Based Rewards & Advancements 35% 43% 46%
Effective Leadership-Empowerment 38% 46% 49%
Training/Development 39% 51% 58%
Effective Leadership-Leader 43% 46% 47%
Strategic Management 45% 52% 55%
Support for Diversity 47% 58% 60%
Work/Life Balance 49% 51% 57%
Effective Leadership-Supervisor 56% 63% 65%
Effective Leadership-Fairness 56% 53% 56%
Teamwork 56% 61% 64%
Pay and Benefits 65% 58% 61%
Best Places to Work 65% 63% 65%
Employee Skills/Mission Match 78% 79% 79%
Family Friendly Culture 85% 76% 79%

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

53
More notably, NPS leaders consider scores between 30% and 40% as very low and as
priority areas needing to be addressed. For ANP, the three lowest categories (also containing the
lowest scoring individual items) were: the Performance-Based Rewards and Advancement Index
at 35%, the Effective Leadership-Empowerment Index at 38%, and the Training/Development
Index at 39%. When examining the individual EVS items for ANP’s 2012 data, there were 18
questions that scored lower than 40% (see Appendix D). These bottom three indexes and 18
lowest scoring questions on the survey represent the gap to be addressed.
Step 4: Identifying Assumed Causes to Identify Conditions and Perceptions within the
Organization
Attempts to improve organizational performance often fail because the solutions
implemented are often based on assumed rather than validated causes (Rueda, 2011). Although a
place to start, assumed causes are unvalidated guesses of the reasons for lack of performance,
and could even be possibly based on research literature, limited evidence, and intuition. On the
other hand, validated causes are arrived at by conducting a thorough investigation, and by
analyzing multiple sources of evidence.
The assumed causes of the performance gap at the NPS and ANP in particular were
arrived at based on a review of the literature on gap analysis and on employee satisfaction, as
described in Chapter 2 (lack of knowledge, motivation, and organizational processes and
resources; lack of employee efficacy, communication, leadership, and accountability), a
knowledge of learning, motivation, and organizational theories, as well as ANP EVS survey
results.
Assumed causes from learning, motivation, and organizational theories. Learning,
motivation, and organization theories can provide useful information that can shed light on
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

54
possible causes of gaps in performance. First, Anderson et al. (2001) help explain that the cause
of low employee satisfaction ratings at ANP may be partially a result of employees’ lack of
knowledge. Second, Bandura (1997b), Mayer (2011), and Pintrich (2003) might argue that the
cause of low employee satisfaction ratings at ANP may be partially a result of leaders’ and/or
employees’ lack of motivation. Third, Clark and Estes’ (2008) and Rueda’s (2011) research both
help to explain that the cause of low employee satisfaction ratings at ANP may be due to cultural
or organizational barriers.
Knowledge (K). According to Clark and Estes (2008), problems with lack of knowledge
occur when people are unaware of a goal or how to accomplish that goal. This lack of awareness
may be due to knowledge or skill deficits. Anderson et al. (2001) categorize knowledge into four
categories: factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive. Furthermore, the process of
mastering knowledge is broken into six categories: remembering, understanding, applying,
analyzing, evaluating and creating.
Factual knowledge is declarative knowledge, the state of knowing, or when a person
knows facts associated with a concept. Cognitive functions associated with factual knowledge
are recalling, recognizing, and remembering. Conceptual knowledge has to do with knowing and
understanding at a macro level how things work together as a complex system. In turn,
conceptual knowledge helps support the ability to categorize, compare and contrast factual
knowledge. Procedural knowledge involves knowing how to do something and applying it
appropriately to situations. On the other hand, metacognitive knowledge involves the ability to
think about one’s own thinking, self-regulation and reflection. Recognizing, analyzing, and
evaluating these four types of knowledge may help to inform performance gaps.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

55
Motivation (M). Motivation is what drives employees to move forward, and specifies
how much effort is needed to accomplish tasks (Clark & Estes, 2008). For example, a person
who does not feel like accomplishing a task and/or does not understand the importance of doing
so is said to be lacking in motivation. Motivation can be divided into three measures: active
choice, persistence, and mental effort. Active choice occurs when a person makes a decision to
actively pursue a goal. Persistence occurs when an individual prioritizes and persists in the face
of obstacles in order to achieve goals. Mental effort occurs when an individual utilizes his or her
mental energy and confidence to achieve a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Mayer (2011) described motivation as an internal force that helps a person maintain
effort towards achieving a goal. Such effort is based upon a person’s attributions, beliefs, goals,
interests, and partnerships. Similarly, Pintrich (2003) identified three factors in motivation:
autonomy (the desire to control one’s own behavior), competence (the desire and ability to learn
a concept), and relatedness (the feeling of belongingness and attachment to a group). Ultimately,
as Bandura (1997b) points out, one’s self-efficacy (belief in one’s own ability to be successful in
specific situations) often depends upon creating prior experiences of success.
Organization (O). An organizational problem exists when there is a lack of efficient or
effective work processes and resources (Clark & Estes, 2008). For example, such systemic
problems can manifest themselves in policies, procedures, or lack of facilities that may get in the
way of achieving a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Additionally, organizational culture or context
plays an important role in improving performance. Regarding the unwritten social norms or
rules that an organization operates by that might impede goal attainment, it is important to
identify potential barriers that exist and then to find appropriate solutions.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

56
Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011) all describe how organizational culture,
structure, work processes, and resources may cause performance gaps. The cultural norms,
regulations, practices, and provision of resources may present barriers to achieving
organizational goals. In addition, Clark and Estes (2008) point out that five organizational
elements that destroy work motivation are: biased feedback, constant competition,
unfairness/hypocrisy, unnecessary rules and work barriers, and vague and changing performance
goals. While not all these elements may be present within the NPS and at ANP, it is important to
consider them when determining the causes of low employee satisfaction.
Assumed causes for Anuenue National Park. To inform studies, in addition to a
literature review, researchers often conduct scanning interviews (informally referred to as “water
cooler discussions”) to get a picture of what people generally think are the reasons behind
existing problems. In place of scanning interviews, USC researchers utilized 2012 EVS park-
specific data to help determine assumed causes.
Each of the EVS questions were organized according to the Clark and Estes’ framework
language of “KMO” (Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational) barriers (See Appendix C).
Overall this sorting revealed that 8% of the EVS questions addressed knowledge or skills issues;
20% addressed motivation; 57% addressed organizational barriers; and 15% were not
categorized (See Figure 2). The questions that were not categorized were focused on job options
(i.e. telecommuting, wellness programs, etc.) that were not available at every park and therefore
not considered in our study.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

57

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

More specifically, the results of the 2012 EVS for ANP indicated that 46 questions fell
below the 60% threshold set by NPS (Appendix D). Eighteen EVS questions that scored below
40% reflected very low scores and were therefore considered priority areas for the organization
(Table 5). These EVS questions were edited, to represent assumed causes for the remainder of
the study. Two-thirds (67%) of these lowest-scoring EVS questions are identified as
organization barriers according to the Gap Analysis Model.

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

58
Table 5
ANP EVS Questions That Scored Lower Than 40% (Lowest to Highest)
EVS
Item
No. Assumed Cause
ANP EVS
Percent
Positive Score K/M/O
24 In the work unit, differences in performance are not recognized in a
meaningful way.
10% O
33 Pay raises do not depend on how well employees perform their jobs. 10% O
23 In the work unit, steps are not taken to deal with poor performer who
cannot or will not improve.
14% O
18 Employees’ training needs are not assessed. 19% O
21 Employees’ work unit is not able to recruit people with the right skills. 19% O
22 Promotions in the work unit are not based on merit. 22% O
67 Employees are not satisfied with their opportunity to get a better job in their
organization.
23% M
25 Awards in the work unit do not depend on how well employees perform
their jobs.
26% O
64 Employees are not satisfied with the information they receive from
management on what’s going on in their organization.
32% K
68 Employees are not satisfied with the training they receive for their present
job.
32% K
9 Employees do not have sufficient resources (for example, people, materials,
budget) to get their jobs done.
33% O
31 Employees are not recognized for providing high quality products and
services
33% O
27 The skill level in the work unit has not improved in the past year. 34% O
53 In the employee’s organization, leaders do not generate high levels of
motivation and commitment in the workplace.
34% O
32 Creativity and innovation are not rewarded. 36% O
30 Employees do not have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to
work processes.
38% M
63 Employees are not satisfied with their involvement in decisions that affect
their work.
39% M
65 Employees are not satisfied with the recognition they receive for doing a
good job.
39% M

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

59
In addition to the very low EVS scores informing assumed causes at ANP, this study also
considered typical causes coming from the literature review in Chapter 2, which suggests that the
lack of efficacy (which in KMO terms is usually a motivation cause), communication (which can
be a knowledge, motivation, or organization cause), leadership (which usually is a motivation
cause), and accountability (which can be a knowledge, motivation or organization cause) were
the primary assumed causes (see Appendix B). The validation process, described later, helped to
clarify how and why ANP employees were experiencing many of these causes.
Knowledge. The EVS questions that focused on knowledge represent 8% of the total
EVS questions (Figure 2), amounting to seven questions (Figure 3).
ANP employees’ average rating on EVS knowledge survey questions was 58.1%
positive. While any ratings below 60% are considered to be low by NPS leadership, the
knowledge percentages were the second highest of the positive ratings among the knowledge,
motivation, and organization causes of low employee satisfaction at ANP. There were two
questions in the knowledge section that had scores below the 40% threshold at ANP. Translating
these two low scores into assumed causes could be worded as, “Employees at ANP are not
satisfied with the information they receive from management on what is going on in their
organization,” and “Employees at ANP are not satisfied with the training they receive for their
present job” (both at 32%; see Figure 3).

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

60

Figure 3. Positive response percentages to EVS knowledge items

Motivation. EVS questions that focused on motivation causes included 17 questions or
20% of EVS (Figure 2). Overall, ANP employees’ positive rating percentages for motivation
items were higher than both the knowledge percentages and the organization ratings.
Specifically, ANP employees’ average rating on EVS motivation survey items was 64.4%
positive (higher than both knowledge and organizational causes of low employee
satisfaction).Nevertheless, four questions in the motivation section had scores below the 40%
threshold at ANP. These assumed causes could be stated as, “ANP employees are not satisfied
with their opportunities to get better jobs in their organization” (23%), “ANP employees are not
satisfied with the recognition they receive for doing a good job” (38%), “ANP employees do not
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Positive Response % for EVS Knowledge Items
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

61
have feelings of personal empowerment with respect to work processes” (39%) and “ANP
employees are not satisfied with their involvement in decisions that affect their work” (39%; see
Figure 4). The first two assumed motivation causes listed above are from the Performance-
Based Rewards and Advancement Category, while the latter two assumed motivation causes are
from the Effective Leadership – Empowerment Category.

Figure 4. Positive response percentages to EVS motivation items

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Positive Response % for EVS Motivation Items
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

62
Organization. EVS questions that focused on organizational causes included 47
questions or 57% of the EVS (Figure 2). Overall, ANP employees’ average rating on
organization EVS survey questions was 48% positive, the lowest positive ratings among the
knowledge, motivation, and organization categories of possible causes of low employee
satisfaction at ANP. As mentioned earlier, NPS leadership considers ratings below the 40%
percent range as very low and needing to be addressed as priorities. Twelve questions in the
organization section had scores below the 40% threshold at ANP. The assumed causes could be
stated as, “ANP employees perceive that differences in performance are not recognized in a
meaningful way” (10%), “ANP employees perceive that raises do not depend on job
performance” (10%), “ANP employees perceive that steps are not taken to deal with poor
performers” (14%), “ANP employees perceive that that their training needs are not being
assessed” (19%), “ANP employees perceive that their work unit is not able to recruit the right
people” (19%), “ANP employees perceive that unit promotions are not based on merit” (22%),
“ANP employees perceive that awards in their work unit do not depend on how well employees
perform their jobs” (26%), “ANP employees perceive that that they do not have sufficient
resources to do their jobs” (33%), “ANP employees perceive that they are not given recognition
for quality performance” (33%), “ANP employees perceive that their work units’ skill levels
have not improved in the past year” (34%), “ANP employees perceive that their leaders are not
able to generate high levels of commitment and motivation” (34%), and “ANP employees
perceive that creativity and innovation are not rewarded” (36%; see Figure 5). Out of these 12
lowest-scoring organization items, seven are directly related to accountability and the EVS
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

63
Performance-Based Rewards and Advancement Category.

Figure 5. Positive response percentages to EVS organization items. Anuenue National Park
employees’ lowest positive rating percentages among the knowledge, motivation, and
organization causes for low employee satisfaction

Summary. This section focuses on the assumed causes for low employee satisfaction at
ANP, including literature, theory and results from the 2012 EVS. Reviewing the EVS questions
that scored below the established threshold of 40% and the literature review (See Table 5), the
researcher proceeded with a focus in the areas of communication, leadership, and accountability.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Positive Response % for EVS Organization Items
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

64
Step 5: Validating the Causes Using Research to Prove the Cause of the Performance Gap
In order to ensure that data was collected and utilized in an ethical manner, this study
underwent review by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to data collection. After
receiving IRB approval, the data was collected and reported in a confidential manner, and for the
sole purpose of assisting NPS leadership with improving employee satisfaction at ANP.
Three sources of data were incorporated into this study to validate assumed causes: (a)
observations of facilitated sessions conducted by NPS staff; (b) document analysis of action
plans created by employees during the facilitated sessions; and (c) follow-up phone interviews of
employees within a month after the facilitated sessions were completed. This triangulation data
collection process (using different data collection sources) is preferable when conducting
qualitative research (McEwan & McEwan, 2003), since using multiple sources of data collection
helps to avoid the possibility of jumping to faulty conclusions during data analysis.
Participants. The population of this study encompasses the entire National Park Service
(NPS) that was described in Chapter 1. As a summary, the NPS is the largest bureau within the
Department of the Interior which employs nearly 26,000 people that include approximately
17,000 permanent, full-time and 9,000 temporary employees (NPS, 2013). The NPS is divided
into seven regions (Alaska, Intermountain, Midwest, National Capital, Northeast, Pacific West,
and Southeast) and manages 401 parks; 49 national heritage areas; 84 million acres of land; over
4.5 million acres of oceans, lakes, and reservoirs; 85,049 miles of perennial rivers and streams;
68, 561 archeological sites; 43,162 miles of shoreline, 27,000 national historic landmarks; 582
national natural landmarks; 400 endangered species; over 121.6 million objects in museum
collections; and nearly 44 million acres of wilderness (NPS, 2013).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

65
The study focuses on the ANP employees, and more specifically non-management staff.
The sample of this study is comprised of the 78 employees at ANP. While all 78 ANP
employees had the opportunity to participate in the 2012 EVS, 33 of them actually took the
survey, a participation rate of 42%. No additional demographic data regarding the park’s EVS
respondents were made available.
In addition to the opportunity to participate in the EVS, all 78 ANP employees were
invited to participate in the ANP facilitated sessions to collectively analyze the 2012 EVS results
and help validate the causes of low employee satisfaction, prioritize their top concerns, and then
to create action plans to address these concerns.
Out of 78 ANP employees, 32 employees actually attended facilitated sessions (41%
participation rate). Finally, a convenience sample of 17 out of these 32 ANP employees that
showed up to the facilitated sessions also volunteered to be individually interviewed to
corroborate the causes and solutions generated (22% of the sample). While these participants
were voluntary and not randomly selected, attempts were made to get volunteers from a cross-
section of the various levels of employees (from entry level through supervisory level).
During the facilitated sessions, there were three groups, one of managers and two groups
of employees organized for facilitated discussion. The management group met three times
during our site visit: twice prior to each employee facilitated session taking place, and then once
after the sessions were concluded for a follow-up debriefing. Since the focus of this study is on
employee perceptions, data from management facilitated sessions were not included.
Of the 32 ANP employees that participated in the facilitated sessions, they had a
cumulative work experience of 528.5 years, for an average of 16.5 years of experience per
employee. The range of experience was from a low of 1 year to a high of 36 years. The
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

66
facilitated sessions were split into two days, with southern ANP employees meeting on one day
and northern ANP employees meeting on another. Amongst the 10 southern participants, there
were 4 in maintenance, 4 in interpretation, and 2 in office administration. Amongst the 22
northern participants, there was 1 in law enforcement, 6 in maintenance, 3 in budget, 2 in project
management, 7 in interpretation, and 3 in office administration. Altogether of the ANP
employee participants, 21 were males and 11 were females.
During the second half of the facilitated sessions, employees participated in an action
planning process that is described in the document analysis section. Each data source (facilitated
sessions, document analysis, and interviews) is described further in the next sections.
Observations of facilitated sessions. NPS Organization Development consultants
conducted facilitated sessions with the goal to increase employee satisfaction. The facilitated
sessions attempted to explain the results of the surveys to park employees and were designed to
help identify actionable items in order to increase employee satisfaction. Observations were
conducted at meetings held at ANP.
The relationship of the observer and observed in this study was observer as participant.
According to Merriam (2009), observer as participant occurs when the researcher’s observer
activities are known to the group and participation in the group is definitely secondary to the role
of information gatherer. The researcher may have access to many people and a wide range of
information using this method, but the level of the information revealed is controlled by the
group members being investigated.
Essentially, as observers of the facilitated sessions, each of the seven USC researchers
took detailed notes of the conversations, prioritized concerns, and action plans. Researchers
observed the facilitated sessions using an observational protocol (Appendix E). During the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

67
facilitated sessions, the participants discussed the EVS results as to what they meant, and why
they meant what they meant. The goal was to understand how and why employees draw
connections between their park’s EVS scores and their suggested solutions. Observing the
facilitated sessions also gave researchers the opportunity to better comprehend the interpersonal
dynamics between employees and their leaders at ANP.
Observations during the facilitated sessions focused on ANP employees’ perceptions of
the EVS ratings, on possible knowledge, motivation, and organization causes, and solutions or
action plans to address the causes. The first part of the facilitated session included the facilitator
distributing the ANP EVS results to the participants and discussing the results as a large group.
Questions included:
1. What stands out to you regarding the scores? Why?
2. What does employee engagement mean to you? What does it look like?
3. What are areas of most concern to you? Why?
At the end of the first half of the facilitated session, participants were asked to vote for
their top three concerns (out of the 14 EVS categories). Votes were then tallied and the top vote
gathering categories were noted.
Action planning (document analysis). Document analysis of action plans was a chosen
data collection method because these documents yielded information that might be difficult or
impossible to obtain another way (Merriam, 2009). The second part of the facilitated discussions
required that participants divide up into groups of five people, with each group to pick one of the
top vote gathering EVS categories that they felt was most important to focus on to improve
employee satisfaction and develop an action plan for that category. The action plan format
included deciding upon a group name, identifying the focus area, stating the purpose/objective of
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

68
the plan (including asking what needs to be created, started, changed, developed, or stopped),
developing possible actions for implementation, stating the intended 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. Later, the teams shared action plans
with the larger group. By the end of both facilitated sessions, there were a total of seven action
plans created by employees (Appendix F).
Interviews of employees. A focused semi-structured interview was the mode of data
collection. This format was selected because it allowed for the collection of targeted information
that is directly related to the topic. Each interview was conducted individually, confidentially,
and anonymously for the purposes of this study. The interviews were part of an ongoing process
that involved reflection, asking analytical questions, and writing notes throughout the study as
Creswell (2009) suggests.
At the end of both employee facilitated discussion sessions, index cards were handed out
to ANP participants to print their contact information on, and asked if they would like to
volunteer to participate in individual follow-up phone interviews within a month after the
sessions. Eighteen ANP volunteers handed the cards to the USC researcher. Each volunteer was
contacted by e-mail a week after the facilitated sessions to set an appointment for a phone
interview. Within a month 17 out of the 18 volunteers were successfully contacted by phone and
interviewed. While interviewees were voluntary participants, there was a representative cross
section of the types of employees (budget, law enforcement, interpretation, maintenance, office
administration, project management, and males/females). Each interview took approximately 30
minutes.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

69
All seven USC researchers used an interview protocol tool that included the questions
encompassing the three elements of the Gap Analysis: (a) Knowledge; (b) Motivation; and (c)
Organizational Barriers (see Appendix C). Within these elements, a series of open-ended sub-
questions were included at the time of the interview (see Appendix G). Interview responses were
then used to explore and verify the perceived causes of low employee satisfaction. The
information from these individual interviews helped validate the large group’s discussion of
causes and possible solutions. There were three sections within the interview protocol: the
individual’s perspective about the facilitated session and its outcomes; the perception of the
individual as to whether or not the goals set during the facilitated session are achievable; and
lastly the perceived causes of low employee satisfaction. The information collected helped
inform the recommendations for ANP.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is a systematic search for meaning and a way to process data so that
conclusions and lessons can be communicated to others (Hatch, 2002). Creswell (2009)
indicates that data analysis is an ongoing process, requiring continual reflection and returning to
and revising analytic questions. Such a process of meaning-making involves moving between
the concrete and abstract, between description and interpretation (Merriam, 2009).
Using the qualitative, case study method (Merriam, 2009) and the Gap Analysis Model
(Clark & Estes, 2008), this dissertation viewed the individual park as a unit of analysis and
examined the connection between assumed causes and solutions of employee satisfaction in real-
life contexts. The research for this study relied on the case study design, which according to
Merriam (2009), is ideal for understanding and interpreting the observation of employee
satisfaction. The case study method is most appropriately holistic in description and explains
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

70
well in situations where multiple variables are influenced by a particular phenomenon (Merriam,
2009). Case study analysis best fits this particular study because the collection of interviews and
observation data allowed a complex story to be developed around ANP. Since data collection
involved three main tools, data analysis involved analyzing these three sources of information:
facilitated employee session observations, document analysis of employee action plans, and
employee interviews.
The data collected from observations, document analysis, and interviews were
specifically analyzed utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model. In particular,
researchers began with the assumed causes that were identified in common between the literature
review and low ANP EVS scores. Researchers then looked for similar themes to appear during
the facilitated employee sessions, group action plans (document analysis), and employee
interviews. The causes that were shared in all three data points (i.e., facilitated sessions,
document analysis, and interviews) were considered validated. This information was analyzed to
look for knowledge, motivation and organizational causes for the gap in employee satisfaction
levels at ANP, and provide research-based solutions that have a high likelihood of closing that
gap.
Summary
The purpose of this study is to understand what is contributing to assumed causes of low
employee satisfaction at ANP. The methodology of the study is comprised of observational and
interview protocols, data collection through observations of EVS employee facilitated large
group sessions, document analysis of employee action plans, and individual employee
interviews. Individual interviews and facilitated large group sessions are comprised of various
ANP employees. Analysis of data included reviewing descriptive and reflective notes taken
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

71
during EVS employee facilitated session observations and interviews to create an overall picture
and narrative of employee satisfaction at ANP.
The following chapter (Chapter 4) will provide an in depth discussion of the results from
implementing the research protocol described in this section of the study.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

72
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Anuenue National Park (ANP) is a conglomeration of multiple historical sites. As one of
401 parks within the National Park Service (NPS), a top organizational goal is to raise its
employee satisfaction levels in order to effectively accomplish its primary mission, which is the
historic and natural preservation of America’s national treasures. The purpose of this study was
to assist ANP leadership in identifying the perceived causes for low employee satisfaction within
ANP, and then, based on these findings, to propose relevant, research-based solutions. Utilizing
the conceptual framework of Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model, the inquiry questions
that framed this study were:
1. What are the perceived knowledge, motivation, and organization causes of low
employee satisfaction at the NPS, and in particular, at ANP?
2. Based on the findings to the first research question, what are the recommended
solutions to address these perceived causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
After determining the assumed causes (Table 6) by comparing the literature review and
2012 EVS scores (particularly items that scored below the established threshold of 40% which
are considered very low and priority areas to address), this researcher went on to collect data to
validate assumed causes. There were three sources of data collected to better understand the
knowledge, motivation and organization causes of low employee satisfaction at ANP:
observations of facilitated employee sessions, document analysis of the employee action plans,
and employee interviews. The order in which data collection took place was primarily pre-
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

73
determined due to the planning and coordination of site visits by NPS leaders. The following
sections on results are organized by knowledge, motivation, and organization causes.

Table 6
Summary of Assumed Causes for KMO Issues
Source/Cause Knowledge Motivation Organization
Results of EVS
questions sorted into
KMO.
2 of 18 lowest
scoring EVS
questions.
Employees want
information about
organization and
more training
opportunities.
4 of 18 lowest
scoring EVS
questions.
Employees want job
opportunities,
empowerment,
recognition, and
decision-
involvement.
12 of 18 lowest scoring
EVS questions.
Employees want
performance-based
recognition, pay raises,
consequences,
promotions, and
awards; their training
needs assessed;
recruitment of the right
people; sufficient
resources; increased
unit skill level, and
leaders who generate
high levels of
motivation.
Literature Review to
KMO Communication
Communication;
Accountability
Communication;
Accountability
Theory. Information
Processing Theory:
Employees want
information to make
choices/decisions
and/or improve
understanding of
goals by improving
communication and
the information that
is shared.
Social Cognitive
Theory: Employees
want to feel valued
and appreciated.
Sociocultural Theory:
Employees need
resources (training,
funds, etc.) to do their
jobs properly.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

74
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Assumed Causes from EVS Survey Results
Although ANP’s 2012 EVS results indicated knowledge causes for low employee
satisfaction, the explanation behind ANP employees wanting more information about their
organization and more training opportunities was not immediately apparent. The EVS results
merely revealed the lack of information and training as concerns. As Clark and Estes (2008)
point out, knowledge gaps are typically a symptom of a lack of information, training, and/or
education. Moreover, as indicated in Chapter 2, knowledge concerns may revolve around
informational and/or relational dimensions of communication. Therefore, the observations,
document analysis of employee action plans, and employee interviews provided further depth on
what kinds of information and training ANP employees desire and reasons why.
Findings from Observations
Observations during the facilitated discussion sessions validated assumed knowledge
causes:
Employees want more factual knowledge about park activities and decisions. First,
the observations clarified why employees were not satisfied with the amount of information they
were receiving from leadership about what was happening within their organization.
Specifically, employees asserted that they lacked the basic factual knowledge necessary to
function optimally. For example, several of the employees reported that they did not discover
the facilitated session details (i.e., about its existence and the start and end times) until the day of
the actual event. Many thought the event would only last an hour instead of the actual period
from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. A second example is that employees described a time when one of
the park sites was closed for the first time any employee could remember, while the other sites
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

75
were kept open: employees mentioned that their perception was that the closure occurred without
any explanation as to the reason. Employees interpreted the closing as retaliation against some
of the employees.
Where there was a perceived lack of communication, the employees tried to fill in the
details for themselves and asserted that they felt there was a lack of mutual care, respect, and
trust, particularly amongst the leadership. Therefore, ANP employees report that they want
transparent communication about site activities and decisions.
Employees want conceptual knowledge on park priorities and budgetary concerns.
Second, employees expressed frustration over their not having a clearer understanding of park
priorities and budgetary matters.
Comments that captured employees feeling unclear about the park’s goals, expectations,
and rules included:
 “We don’t know what’s right or wrong in management’s eyes.”
 “There’s a need for communication regarding goals, expectations, needs, what the
employees are doing well and not doing well, and the pressures that managers and
supervisors face. There needs to be a web of communication where everyone feels
open and comfortable.”
 “I counted 38 days my supervisor did not speak to me. That was the record.”
Referring to not being kept in the loop about budgetary matters, several employees
reported that they did not understand how decisions were being made. Comments included:
 “Regarding budget, we’re told there’s no money to spend and then suddenly at the
end of a fiscal year, there’s thousands of dollars that needs to be spent immediately.”
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

76
 “The perception is that lots of the money gets held back to see what one favored park
in particular needs. Part of the problem is institutional; part of it is a game: money is
hidden in special accounts. Even some supervisors don’t know money issue
specifics. When people move, die, or retire and their positions are not filled, where
does the money that is saved by not filling the position go?”
From the observation and comments above, it is apparent that employees want more
conceptual knowledge about park priorities and budgetary matters. In other words, they need
further clarification and explanation of what the park’s priorities are and how budgetary
decisions are determined.
Employees want more training opportunities that are relevant to their jobs. Third,
facilitated session observations revealed why many employees are not satisfied with the training
opportunities that are provided to them. Comments that captured the session participants’
perceptions included:
 “There’s little space or time for training to advance. NPS-wide, the opportunities are
limited and sporadic. We’re just struggling to keep the parks open.”
 “Regarding re-training, we’re told to get in line and get it, but it’s difficult to get
training unless you get it on your own time.”
 “There’s no time during the work day to get training (i.e., WebEx). We must get the
workload done during the day.”
From the comments just listed, it is clear that employees are dissatisfied with the
perceived limited number of training opportunities and do not feel they have time during the
work day to attend or participate in training due to their existing workloads.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

77
Summarizing overall from the observations of the facilitated employee sessions,
employees asserted that they lack factual information from management on what is going on in
their organization, they asserted that they need more conceptual knowledge about park priorities
and budgetary matters, and they asserted that they lack training opportunities to help them
perform their jobs optimally.
Findings from Document Analysis
After discussing the EVS results and prioritizing challenges during the first half of each
employee facilitated session, ANP employees divided into groups to collaboratively choose a top
challenge and to develop action plans (Appendix F) as a means to improve employee
satisfaction.
Unlike any other issue that will be mentioned under document analysis, all 7 plans have
communication as one of the primary elements. The details from the group action planning also
support previous data regarding assumed knowledge causes. This perceived lack of
communication has led to employees feeling that management does not care, respect, or trust the
employees and vice versa.
One employee summed it up this way, “Our perception is that the leaders don’t care; if
they don’t care, why should we? What they tell me to do I do, but I don’t do much above and
beyond.”
In analyzing the 7 plans in regard to knowledge and communication, employees want
(a) more factual and conceptual knowledge about park priorities, activities, projects, decisions,
personnel and budgetary concerns; (b) improved communication throughout the 5 park sites,
within divisions and across divisions, using systemic processes for sharing information, engaging
with supervisor in-person, and having team meetings; (c) improved teamwork with entire staff by
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

78
having group meetings, planning social activities, and increasing positive reinforcement of
individual and group accomplishments; and (d) more training opportunities for themselves and
their leaders, particularly on improving communication.
Findings from Interviews
Findings from the interviews confirmed both the EVS survey findings as well as the
observations of the facilitated session:
Employees want more factual communication about site activities and decisions.
First, employees in the interviews asserted that they lacked factual information from
management on what is going on in their organization. Comments included the following:
 “I would highlight communication—there’s very little of it.”
 “Multiple times when employees need to call supervisors for answers, the
supervisors do not pick up their phones.”
 “I called for help (from employees and low level supervisors) and I was referred to
reading SOPs (Standards of Practice). People were not very helpful. Documentation
is very long—sometimes as much as 400 pages—to the point we don’t know how to
use it.”
 “Information doesn’t get to workers. If employees don’t get treated as a team, they
don’t act as a team.”
From the interviews and comments above, it seems that employees are not satisfied with
the information they receive from management, because the amount is limited, particularly when
the employees feel they need help and direction.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

79
Employees want more conceptual knowledge about park priorities and budgetary
matters. Second, employees in the interviews expressed a desire to understand more clearly
what the park’s expectations are and how budgetary decisions are made. Comments included:
 “We need manageable directions, have clear expectations, objectives, and
parameters.”
 “There is a wall, a layer of separation, between management and employees. For
example, the budget is public, but it hasn’t been shared with the staff because the
leaders fear it’s difficult for them to grasp the numbers. They might misunderstand.
We need to work at helping the employees to understand the budget numbers.”
Employees want more training opportunities that are relevant to their jobs.
Interviews also re-confirmed why many employees are not satisfied with the training
opportunities that are provided to them. Comments that captured the interviewees’ perceptions
included:
 “Basically, we need better supervision, more contact and communication, and career
building opportunities.”
 “Lack of training and skills definitely factors into the equation too—there’s not too
much direction both at the employee level and the leadership level.”
From the interviews and comments above, it appears that employees are dissatisfied with
the training opportunities not only because the quantity is limited, but also because there is not
enough relevance, purpose, and direction behind existing training.
Similar to the facilitated sessions then, ANP interviewees asserted their lack of factual
information from management on what is going on in their organization, asserted their lack of
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

80
conceptual knowledge regarding park priorities and budgetary matters, and asserted their lack of
relevant training opportunities to help them to perform their jobs optimally.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Employees want more and improved communication and they want more training
opportunities. ANP employees are not satisfied with the amount and quality of the information
they receive from management on what is going on in their organization and are not very
satisfied with the training they receive for their present job. These low satisfaction ratings were
echoed in the facilitated session observations, document analysis, and phone interviews.
Specifically, due to their perceived lack of factual and conceptual knowledge, employees want
more communication about park priorities, activities, decisions, and budgetary concerns. In
addition, due to the work overload and limited offerings, employees also want more training
opportunities that are relevant to their jobs.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Assumed Causes from EVS Survey Results
While the EVS survey for ANP indicated four causes related to motivation, what we
could not know from these results alone were the details and assertions behind why these items
are concerns for the employees. The ANP EVS data indicated that assumed causes affecting
motivation are (a) ANP employees are not satisfied with their opportunities to get a better jobs in
their organization (question number 67; score 23%); (b) ANP employees do not have a feeling of
personal empowerment with respect to work processes (question number 30; score 38%);
(c) ANP employees are not satisfied with their involvement in decisions that affect their work
(question number 63; score 39%); and (d) ANP employees are not satisfied with the recognition
they receive from management for doing good jobs (question number 65; score 39%).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

81
According to Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model, motivation gaps can be a symptom
of lack of purpose or interest that is influenced by both internal and external factors. The
observations, document analysis, and interviews help to confirm or disconfirm assumed causes,
while also providing a deeper explanation from the employees’ perspectives on what are their
perceived needs.
Findings from Observations
During the facilitated session observations, all four assumed causes were validated as
barriers to higher employee satisfaction levels at ANP: namely, employees feel that they lack
better job opportunities within the organizations, that they do not feel empowered in job
processes, that they do not feel they are being involved in decision-making that affects their jobs,
and that they do not feel they are receiving recognition for doing good jobs. Essentially, the
employees reported that they highly identify with the NPS mission and enjoy the work they do
(implying that they are very self-motivated), but that these four external factors are negatively
affecting their motivation.
Employees want more opportunities to advance in the NPS. First, employees
indicated that they are not satisfied with their opportunities for promotion at ANP, this item
receiving the lowest employee satisfaction ratings of all EVS motivation-related items. A
representative comment was:
 “NPS-wide, the opportunities are limited and sporadic.”
The opportunities for promotion were perceived by employees as limited primarily due to
low employee turnover, sequestration, and budget cuts: without much movement and the reduced
number of positions, there are not many opportunities to advance.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

82
Employees want to feel empowered by being given opportunities to take risks.
Second, employees asserted that they do not feel personally empowered with respect to doing
their current jobs. When rating their top three concerns at the facilitated employee sessions, the
Leadership-Empowerment category received the largest percentage of votes by ANP employees
(i.e., 60%). Comments regarding lack of employee empowerment included:
 “As an agency, there’s no room to fail—it’s a big deal; therefore, risk-taking doesn’t
happen.”
 “Empowerment is a 90’s buzzword. Buzzwords are used to help you feel you’re
involved when you’re not.”
The observation and comments above seem to suggest that employees do not feel
empowered or respected because they feel they are not encouraged to take risks.
Employees want to be more involved in the decisions that affect their work. Third,
employees asserted that they do not feel they are adequately involved in the decision-making
process that impacts their work. A representative comment included:
 “A lot of people don’t feel respected here. Workers who worked over the holidays
get their heads chopped off for trying to do their jobs without their supervisors. It
gets to the point that when decisions have to be made, we say, ‘I’m not making the
call.’ There’s a huge divide between supervisors/managers and employees.”
The observations and the comment made above seem to suggest that employees do not
feel they have much say in decision-making that affects their work, and when they do make
decisions, they get reprimanded for doing so.
Employees want recognition for doing a good job. Fourth, employees discussed their
perceived lack of recognition for doing a good job. Comments included:
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

83
 “We don’t feel our work is valued.”
 “Management says we have the best team to outsiders but most employees don’t hear
the positive. We only get told when we do poorly.”
 “Letters of appreciation come to the park from outside visitors, but they don’t get
acknowledged by the supervisor to the employees, but employees get reprimanded
quickly when they do something wrong.”
 “We only get face-to-face reprimands; positives may only come via e-mail.”
From the observations and comments above, employees do not feel valued because they
are not getting adequate face-to-face positive recognition, but rather only reprimands.
Findings from Document Analysis
During action planning when ANP employees divided into groups to brainstorm ideas
and suggestions for improving employee satisfaction, four out of seven groups focused on
empowerment and employee involvement in decision making (Appendix F). Data gathered from
these group employee discussions also reinforced three of the four assumed motivation causes
discussed earlier in this section. The only motivation cause that was not really touched upon in
employee action plans was the desire for better job opportunities, which likely was not selected
as a focus due to impending budget cuts and the realization that multiple job openings will not
arise any time soon.
When action planning, four out of seven employee groups chose to develop their action
plan around empowerment, communication, and decision-making, with the intention of allowing
for more employee input prior to major decisions being made that impact their work. Once again
as mentioned under empowerment, employees do not feel empowered because they do not feel
they have much say in decision-making that affects their work. In many cases, these plans
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

84
included developing a cross-park work group (comprised of employees representative of all
divisions and levels) to enhance communication and decision-making. This idea will be re-
visited in Chapter 5 when solutions to validated causes are discussed. In summary, from the
document analysis of employee action plans:
Employees want to have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work
processes. Employees expressed a desire to have clear sense of direction that also allows
flexibility within these guidelines to utilize their own knowledge and expertise. Moreover, they
wanted their voices to be valued by their leadership, the ability to also evaluate and give
feedback to their leaders, and allowance for first-time mistakes to be made without the fear of
reprisal.
Employees want to be involved in the decisions that affect their work. Regarding
decisions that affect their work, ANP employees wanted more communication to take place so
that they are aware of choices and decisions being made. Employees also wanted to be involved
in actual decisions, particularly in terms of prioritizing projects and offering their suggestions
and opinions.
Employees want recognition for doing a good job. In focusing on providing
communication training for leadership and employees, one group’s action plan reflected a desire
for there to be a focus on highlighting and commending park accomplishments more and
increasing positive reinforcement of employees.
Findings from Interviews
During the interviews, assumed motivation causes were once again validated as barriers
to higher employee satisfaction levels at ANP, namely in the areas of employees feeling they
lack better job opportunities within the organizations, not feeling empowered in job processes,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

85
feeling that they are not being involved in decision-making, and feeling they do not receive
recognition for doing good jobs. Furthermore, similar to the facilitated session observations, the
interviews also helped to reveal similar reasons why these specific causes were validated:
Employees want more opportunities to advance within the NPS. First, regarding
lacking better job opportunities within the organization, employee comments included:
 “We need better career building opportunities. Currently the supervisors, unit
managers, and superintendent do not really encourage people to advance.”
 “So nepotism is a concern: at least three positions were written with specific people
in mind. In another situation, with a job opening, there was preferential selection
instead of giving everyone a chance to apply.”
From the comments above, interviewees felt that advancement was limited due to a lack
of openings, lack of encouragement from leadership to apply, and perceived lack of fairness
when applying for job openings.
Employees want to feel empowered to take risks in making decisions to do their jobs
effectively. Second, regarding empowerment, employees remarked that they did not feel they
are empowered to do their jobs effectively. The following are representative interviewee
comments:
 “We need to give employees the room and freedom to decide how to carry out their
responsibilities.”
 “We’re not being heard and are treated like hired help. We need to feel that our
voices are heard and feel that we can make a difference. Instead, we are not kept in
the loop and are held back…We need to be trusted and allowed to move forward.”
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

86
From the comments above, employees do not feel empowered nor trusted because they
say they are not given freedom to decide how to carry out their responsibilities and they are not
given a chance to have their voices heard in decision-making that impacts their work.
Employees want to be involved in decisions that impact their work. Third, regarding
decision involvement, employees felt that they were often not given the opportunity to be
involved in decisions that impacted their work. Employees remarked the following:
 “It goes back to respect (valuing opinions and involving us in decision-making).”
 “The bottom line is regarding the issues surrounding supervisors/management: in
specific, the promotion, hiring practices, leadership style, skills respect, decision-
making, and need for follow-through.”
 “At my previous assignment, I went through participatory decision-making training.
Things got better: we served visitors and operated as a unit—and it was a positive
experience. I hope we can confirm this process here.”
From the comments above, employees appear not to feel they have a participatory say in
decision-making that impacts their work.
Employees want to be recognized for doing a good job. Fourth, regarding recognition
for doing a good job, employees frequently noted that they feel they were neither acknowledged
nor appreciated. Comments by interviewees included:
 “Things not only need to change at the leadership level but also at the employee
level—it has a lot to do with communication (including acknowledging positive
work).”
 “We’re underappreciated and get no respect.”
 “Regarding work evaluations, people that deserve good evaluations don’t get them.”
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

87
 “Even with a little improvement, the good employees would have motivation to
continue. Just a ‘thank you’ would help. Management and supervisors need training
to show concern, respect, fairness, and appreciation. Right now, there are no parties,
no saying ‘hi’ to each other, or being appreciated.”
From the comments above, it appears that, employees feel there is a lack of recognition
when they do a good job. They do not feel appreciated, cared for, nor respected, because they
feel both their leaders and fellow employees do not say, “thank you” or acknowledge their
quality work.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Employees want to feel empowered, be involved in decision-making, and be
recognized when they are doing their jobs well. Three of the four EVS motivation items
receiving the lowest positive ratings were also items brought up during the facilitated discussion
sessions, document analysis, and phone interviews as barriers to employee satisfaction.
Specifically, employees indicated they did not feel empowered to do their work, they were not
satisfied with their level of involvement in decisions that affect their work, and they did not feel
they were getting recognition when they did a good job.
Only one motivation EVS item, dealing with wanting better opportunities for promotion,
was not directly addressed in the action plans, again likely due to impending budget cuts,
sequestration, and the realization that new job opportunities are not likely to arise in the near
future.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

88
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
Assumed Causes from EVS Survey Results
While the EVS survey for ANP indicated gaps related to organizational barriers, what we
cannot know from the survey results alone are the reasons and details beyond the surface of the
questions. Starting with the lowest satisfaction scores, the ANP EVS data’s assumed
organization causes are (a) in the work unit, differences in performance are not recognized in a
meaningful way (question number 24; score 10%); (b) pay raises do not depend on how well
employees perform their jobs (question number 33; score 10%); (c) steps are not taken to deal
with the poor performer (questions number 23; score 14%); (d) employees’ training needs are not
assessed (question number 18; score 19%); (e) employees’ work units are not able to recruit the
people with the right skills (question number 21; score 19%); (f) promotions in the work unit are
not based on merit (question number 22; score 22%); (g) awards in the work unit do not depend
on how well employees do their jobs (question number 25; score 26%); (h) employees do not
have sufficient resources to get their jobs done (question number 9; score 33%); (i) employees
are not recognized for providing high quality products and services (question number 31; score
33%); (j) the skill level in the work unit has not improved in the past year (question number 27;
score 34%); (k) leaders do not generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the
workplace; and (l) creativity and innovation are not rewarded (question number 32; score 36%).
Seven of these 12 questions are related to accountability and part of the lowest performing EVS
category, Performance-Based Rewards & Advancement. From the literature review in Chapter
2, concerns around accountability will likely impact knowledge, motivation, and organization
causes of low employee satisfaction. Data from the observations, document analyses, and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

89
interviews provided more detailed information from the employees’ point of view what they
really desire and why.
Findings from Observations
During the facilitated discussion sessions, the top 10 out of the 12 lowest EVS
organization-related items were validated as barriers to higher employee satisfaction levels at
ANP:
Employees want their performance ratings, raises, promotions, rewards, recognition
to be based on performance. First, confirming the lowest scoring EVS organization-related
item, employees were particularly in agreement that performance differences were not being
recognized meaningfully. Recognizing performance differences have similar comments in
common with five of the top 10 lowest scoring EVS organization-related items: pay raises being
dependent on employee job performance, work units addressing poor performers, promotions
being based on merit, awards depending upon performance, and recognition being given for
quality performance. The commonalities amongst all these items are that they are all
accountability issues having to do with performance, and are dependent upon a supervisor’s
oversight both in terms of acknowledgement and consequences. Performance evaluations,
rewards and recognition, and promotions were often perceived as being subjective and based
more on employees’ relationships with their supervisors rather than their actual performance.
There was a perceived lack of ongoing, objective communication and feedback based on clear
expectations and performance; instead, there was a sense of favoritism and subjectivity. Below
are some representative employee comments from the observations of employee facilitated
sessions:
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

90
 “Dedicated employees get a majority of the work, while others are not doing their
share and nothing is done about it even when brought to the administration’s
attention.”
 “Regarding work evaluations, people that deserve good evaluations don’t get them,
while those who don’t deserve good evaluations do get them because they are buddy-
buddy with their supervisors. The supervisors are doing wrong and top management
needs to address this (Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent) but they aren’t. It
boils down to accountability and fairness.”
 “For two years, our biggest issue in our division is preferential treatment: two
employees who were hired go on trips and can do nothing wrong. The rest of us are
left to do the work.”
 “If the supervisor likes you, you get a positive evaluation. I may get an eight hour
time-off award, another may get 24 hours off—it depends on the supervisor.”
 “I take evaluations seriously but time-off only comes with excellent/superior ratings.
It becomes a popularity contest. I feel there’s no hope in getting the
excellent/superior ratings, so there’s no sense trying. The supervisor only sees what
you do maybe on only two to three things all year versus someone who works closely
with the supervisor.”
 “In another department, a person went from earning 2s and 3s to perfect 5s in one
year—the perception is that scores are not fairly evaluated.”
 “As a former supervisor elsewhere, I set achievable/measureable goals to get 4s/5s in
another locale—I don’t see this as much here. The first time I got evaluated here, I
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

91
wasn’t asked what I did that year. Some here are asked to submit accomplishments,
so evaluations are not consistent.”
Based on these comments above, it is clear that employees feel that their leaders do not
sufficiently acknowledge performance differences, raises, poor performers, promotions, rewards,
recognition, or incentives in fair accordance with employees’ actions, but rather they feel they
are often treated subjectively.
Employees want their work units to recruit people based on merit. Second,
regarding employees’ dissatisfaction with their work units being able to recruit the right people,
as mentioned previously, there were instances where employees said positions were tailored and
advertised with intent to hire specific “friends” in mind, instead of hiring based on actual need
for the position and on the merit of who is best qualified for the position. In addition, during the
observation, comments were made to the effect that, “Poor performers are not being held
accountable here.” Based on these two observations, employees are dissatisfied with their work
units being able to recruit the right people because they feel nepotism is occurring and because
poor performers do not get addressed.
Employees want their training needs assessed. Third, regarding employees’ training
needs being assessed, as mentioned earlier in the knowledge causes, employees perceive that
little money and time exist for training to occur, due to budget cuts and work overload. Related
to this problem is that employees feel that training and development opportunities are lacking.
Comments include the following:
 “There’s little space and time for training…We’re just struggling to keep the parks
open.”
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

92
 “The overall list captured things well, particularly the need for training and
development and workload problems.”
Based on the comments and observations of the facilitated sessions above, employees are
concerned with the fact that their training needs are not being assessed because of lack of time
and availability of training.
Employees want sufficient resources to get their jobs done. Fourth, regarding
employees having sufficient resources to get their jobs done, a common theme was that due to
budget cuts and sequestration (note that an additional temporary government shutdown occurred
shortly after the interviews were completed), that employees felt there was a shortage of
resources and staff which in turn increased employee workload (which was also a low scoring
EVS item at 42.4% positive employee satisfaction ratings). In fact, employees remarked that
they were surprised that satisfaction ratings were not even lower, in part due to the budget cuts
and increased workload. Employee comments included the following:
 “People are shorthanded. That’s why minimal work gets done…A plan exists but
doesn’t always get followed because things come up half the time.”
 “Due to work overload we’re double and triple-booking ourselves and trying to do
what’s necessary…Also, position descriptions are out the window due to the added
responsibilities.”
From the observations of facilitated sessions and comments above, it is clear that
employees feel that they do not have sufficient resources to get their work done, because they
face work overload and budget constraints brought on by federal budget cuts, sequestration, and
government shutdown.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

93
Employees want their leaders to generate high levels of motivation and commitment.
Fifth, regarding employees feeling dissatisfied with their leaders’ abilities to generate high levels
of motivation and commitment, a recurring theme from the observations of facilitated sessions is
that ANP is comprised of multiple parks, that the park is too big, and there are too many layers
of leadership to go through to get information, decisions, and permission. Observation of
facilitated session comments that capture such sentiments included:
 “There’s too many levels of leadership: around 1994 or 1995, we were all pushed
together and forced to try to be one big happy family (like a forced shotgun
marriage): you have the Superintendent over the parks, middle level management,
and local supervisors.”
 “If the leaders don’t care, why should I?
From the observations of the facilitated sessions and the comments above, it is clear that
employees feel that their leaders are not generating high levels of motivation and commitment
amongst employees, because there are too many layers of leadership, the park is big and spread
out over five sites, and leaders do not seem to habitually communicate, have care, trust and
respect for the employees; in turn, the employees lack morale.
Once again, the majority of employees identified the Effective Leadership -
Empowerment Category as one of their top three choices from which to develop action plans.
This category includes the EVS organization item concerning leaders being able to generate high
levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce. Other categories making the employees’
top three list were the Effective Leadership-Supervisor Category, the Effective Leadership-
Fairness Category, the Training/Development Category, the Teamwork Category, the Effective
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

94
Leadership - Leader Category, and the Performance-Based Rewards and Advancement Category.
All of these categories contained EVS organization items.
Findings from Document Analysis
Employees want performance-based recognition and appreciation from NPS
leadership, they want their training needs to be assessed, and they want their leaders to
generate high levels of motivation. First regarding recognition, when ANP employees divided
into groups to develop action plans to improve employee satisfaction, one out of seven groups
focused on performance-based recognition (Appendix F). The data from this group supports the
assumed organization causes regarding performance-based accountability. As mentioned earlier,
one group wanted more emphasis on highlighting and commending park accomplishments and
increasing the positive reinforcement of employees when they perform well. Second, regarding
training needs being assessed, another group focused on communication and leadership needs
being met through the provision of training. Third regarding leaders generating higher levels of
motivation, all seven groups were looking to leadership to increase morale, particularly through
improved communication.
Findings from Interviews
Similar to the facilitated discussion sessions, the interviews confirmed the top 10 out of
the 12 lowest EVS organization-related items and were validated as barriers to higher employee
satisfaction levels at ANP:
Employees want their evaluations, recognition, awards, and promotions to be based
on their performance. First, confirming the lowest scoring EVS organization-related item,
employees commented that performance differences were not being recognized meaningfully.
Remarks from interviews were also similar when it came to pay raises being dependent on
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

95
employee job performance, work units addressing poor performers, promotions being based on
merit, awards depending upon performance, and recognition being given for quality
performance. In essence, employees felt that evaluations, recognition, awards, and promotion
were subjective and relationship-based instead performance-based. Representative comments
included:
 “Regarding performance appraisal, we are not always fair or consistent across the
board (one division awards all employees, another division awards none). This is not
easy to follow through on due to the dependence on particular supervisors to conduct
their quarterly and yearly appraisals (which are not always regularly conducted and
feedback and communication given to the employee).”
 “Regarding work evaluations, people that deserve good evaluations don’t get them,
while those who don’t deserve good evaluations do get them because they are buddy-
buddy with their supervisors.”
From the interviews and comments above, the employees again asserted their perception
that their leaders rated and treated their employees subjectively.
Employees want their work units to recruit the right people based on merit. Second,
regarding employees’ work units being able to recruit the right people, employees felt that
positions were not always created and advertised fairly. On the other hand, four out of 17
employees felt that problems stemmed from employees themselves being entrenched and
unwilling to change. Representative interview comments included the following:
 “A couple of leaders here aren’t really leaders at all. They play favorites. For
example, an applicant was coached and the job description was tailored to that
person, but eventually the job was pulled due to ‘sequestration.’ In actuality, the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

96
supervisor tried to hire a friend, but a petition was signed to halt the process. As the
saying goes, ‘Power corrupts.’”
 “As retirements and layoffs occur over time though, things are getting better—there
are departures of ‘pains in the butt’ that are fussers and go to the union all the time.”
Based on the interviews and the comments above, employees seem dissatisfied with their
work units being able to recruit the right people, because they feel nepotism is occurring and also
because many employees have been around for a long time and are entrenched in their work
habits, complaining and lacking in initiative.
Employees want their training needs assessed. Third, employees did not feel that their
training needs were being assessed. Due to limited resources and time, employees found
themselves and their leaders just trying to manage their daily responsibilities. Once again,
employees were dissatisfied that their training needs were not being assessed due to a lack of
time (i.e. work overload) and due to budget constraints.
Employees want sufficient resources provided to get their jobs done. Fourth,
regarding employees feeling that they do not have sufficient resources to get their jobs done,
once again a common theme was that due to budget cuts and sequestration, there was a shortage
of resources and staff which in turn increased employee workload. Employee interview
comments included:
 “We have large goals that start out at NPS nationally, but with budget cuts,
sequestration, etc., I don’t think they are attainable. I haven’t seen morale as bad as it
is now.”
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

97
 “I do acknowledge that we are short-staffed and the workload has increased, but this
is out of our control. Things may get better if the economy improves and we’re able
to hire more people to reduce the workload, but this is not the current reality.”
From the interviews and these comments above, employees seem to feel they do not have
sufficient resources to get their jobs done, due to budget cuts and increased workload.
Employees want their leaders to generate high levels of motivation and commitment.
Fifth, employees asserted that they did not feel that their leaders were generating high levels of
employee motivation and commitment. Comments included the following:
 “We need to promote a sense of inclusion rather than exclusion and leadership and
management needs to reach out to everyone.”
 “With me, I think that the leaders will go through the motions...The issue is hot today
but will be forgotten. An example of this is when we had the focus of safety and
operational leadership—they were hot topics for a short period…”
From the interviews and comments above, it seems that employees did not feel their
leaders were generating high levels of motivation and commitment because employees do not
feel empowered and are not included in participatory decision-making, and because focal issues
are short-lived.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Organization Causes
Employees want performance-based recognition and appreciation from NPS
leadership, they want their training needs to be assessed, and they want their leaders to
generate high levels of motivation. Observation of facilitated sessions and employee
interviews validated assumed organization causes on 10 of the 12 lowest rated organization items
from the EVS. Specifically, employees asserted that job performance differences were not
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

98
differentiated meaningfully, that raises did not depend on job performance, that the employee
unit did not address the poor performer, that the employee unit did not always recruit the right
people, that employee training needs were not assessed, that unit promotions were not based on
merit, that awards did not depend on performance, that recognition was not typically given for
quality performance, that there was a lack of sufficient resources for employees to carry out their
job responsibilities, and that employees’ leaders did not generate high levels of motivation and
commitment. Furthermore, document analysis of action plans validated three out of the 12
items: that employees’ training needs are not assessed, that employees are not recognized for
quality service and products, and that leaders do not generate high levels of employee
motivation.
It should be noted that creativity and innovation being rewarded and improvement of the
employee unit’s skill level were not spoken about as perceived causes for low employee
satisfaction during the facilitated sessions nor did these issues come up during the action
planning and telephone interviews.
Summary
ANP employees like the work they do, have the skills they need to do their job well, and
identify with the mission of the NPS organization. However, the survey results indicate (see
Figure 6), and the observations, action plans, and interviews validate, that there are some aspects
of the work environment at ANP that are causing employees not to be satisfied.
If these problems are corrected, employee satisfaction will likely improve as employees’
perceived needs are addressed (Figure 7).

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

99

Figure 6. Anuenue National Park positive response percentages to EVS knowledge, motivation,
and organization items

Figure 7. ANP employees’ top three of the fourteen EVS categories that they felt would make
the biggest difference in employee engagement, if changed

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Positive Response
Percentages for EVS
Knowledge Items
Positive Reponse
Percentages for EVS
Motivation Items
Positive Response
Percentages for EVS
Organization Items
KMO Synthesis
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
ANP Employees' Votes for EVS Category Prioritization
Total # of Employee
Participants = 32
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

100
Specifically, there is a perceived lack of communication, transparency, and accountability
at ANP. In particular, employees asserted that there is not enough information coming from
leadership about issues and decisions that affect employees and not enough communication with
all employees. Employees do not feel empowered and they do not feel that they are adequately
involved in the organization’s decision-making processes. Moreover, employees asserted that
opportunities for training and advancement are limited. Finally, employees asserted that
employee performance is not recognized in a meaningful, consistent manner. Table 7 is a
summary of perceived causes by data set and whether or not they were triangulated as causes of
low employee satisfaction at ANP.
While Chapter 4 presented the findings from the observations, document analyses, and
interviews that validated the causes for low employee satisfaction at ANP, Chapter 5 will review
how the literature informs solutions to the aforementioned causes and present recommendations
based on empirical evidence.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

101
Table 7
Validated Causes at ANP by Data Set
EVS Observations Action Plans Interviews
Knowledge
(K)
Dissatisfaction with
Training Opportunities
Dissatisfaction with
Training Opportunities
Dissatisfaction with
Training Opportunities
Dissatisfaction with
Training Opportunities
Lack Information from
Management about
Organization
Lack Information from
Management about
Organization
Lack Information from
Management about
Organization
Lack Information from
Management about
Organization
Motivation
(M)
Lack Better Job
Opportunities in
Organization
Lack Better Job
Opportunities in
Organization
Not Validated Lack Better Job
Opportunities in
Organization
Don’t Feel Empowered
in Job Processes
Don’t Feel Empowered
in Job Processes
Don’t Feel Empowered
in Job Processes
Don’t Feel Empowered in
Job Processes
Lack of Decision
Involvement
Lack of Decision
Involvement
Lack of Decision
Involvement
Lack of Decision
Involvement
Lack of Recognition for
Doing a Good Job
Lack of Recognition for
Doing a Good Job
Lack of Recognition for
Doing a Good Job
Lack of Recognition for
Doing a Good Job
Organization
(O)
Perf Diff Aren’t
Recognized
Meaningfully
Perf Diff Aren’t
Recognized
Meaningfully
Not Validated Perf Diff Aren’t
Recognized Meaningfully
Raises Don’t Depend on
Job Performance
Raises Don’t Depend
on Job Performance
Not Validated Raises Don’t Depend on
Job Performance
Unit Doesn’t Addresses
Poor Performer
Unit Doesn’t Addresses
Poor Performer
Not Validated Unit Doesn’t Addresses
Poor Performer
Training Needs are Not
Assessed
Training Needs are Not
Assessed
Training Needs are Not
Assessed
Training Needs are Not
Assessed
Unit Unable to Recruit
Right People
Unit Unable to Recruit
Right People
Not Validated Unit Unable to Recruit
Right People
Unit Promotions Not
Based on Merit
Unit Promotions Not
Based on Merit
Not Validated Unit Promotions Not
Based on Merit
Awards Don’t Depend
on Performance
Awards Don’t Depend
on Performance
Not Validated Awards Don’t Depend on
Performance
Lack Sufficient
Resources for Job
Lack Sufficient
Resources for Job
Not Validated Lack Sufficient Resources
for Job
Recognition Not Given
for Quality Perf
Recognition Not Given
for Quality Perf
Recognition Not Given
for Quality Perf
Recognition Not Given for
Quality Perf
My Unit’s Skill Level
Hasn’t Improved
Not Validated Not Validated Not Validated
Leaders do not generate
high levels of
commitment
Leaders do not generate
high levels of
commitment
Leaders do not generate
high levels of
commitment
Leaders do not generate
high levels of commitment
Creativity/ Innovation
are Not Rewarded
Not Validated Not Validated Not Validated

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

102
CHAPTER 5
SOLUTIONS
The purpose of this case study is to assist Anuenue National Park (ANP) leadership in
identifying the perceived causes for low employee satisfaction within ANP, and then based on
these findings to propose relevant, research-based solutions. Utilizing the conceptual framework
of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, the inquiry questions that framed this study were:
1. What are the perceived knowledge, motivation, and organization causes of low
employee satisfaction at the NPS, and in particular, at ANP?
2. Based on the findings to the first research question, what are the recommended
solutions to address these perceived causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
Three sources of data (facilitated ANP employee sessions, document analysis of
employee action plans, and employee follow-up interviews) were gathered and triangulated to
validate the assumed causes of low employee satisfaction at ANP. The perceived causes that
were validated in Chapter 4 will be summarized and prioritized here in this next section of
Chapter 5. Then, Inquiry Question 2 will be addressed, proposing recommended, research-based
solutions to the prioritized validated causes of low employee satisfaction, followed by a
presentation of an integrated plan of implementation.
Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to discuss potential solutions that have been designed
to address the prioritized validated causes of low employee satisfaction at ANP. This chapter
will also provide recommendations for implementing these solutions. Afterwards, Chapter 6 will
provide recommendations for evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed solutions once the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

103
integrated plan has been implemented, as well as presenting implications, strengths, weaknesses,
limitations, and recommendations for future study.
Validated Causes Selection and Rationale
Table 8 is a summary of the validated causes of low ANP employee satisfaction from
Chapter 4 re-worded in terms of perceived employee need. These causes are categorized by
knowledge, motivation, and organization. Furthermore, each cause can be further classified into
three subtopics: accountability, empowerment, and training.

Table 8
Validated KMO Needs of Employees
Perceived Employee Need Subtopic
Knowledge Employees want more communication about site
priorities, activities, decisions, and budgetary concerns.
Accountability
Employees want more training opportunities that are
relevant to their jobs.
Accountability,
Training
Motivation Employees want to feel empowered in their job
processes.
Empowerment
Employees want to be involved in decision making that
impact their jobs.
Empowerment
Employees want recognition for doing a good job. Accountability
Organization Employees want their leaders to generate high levels of
commitment and motivation.
Accountability,
Empowerment
Employees want recognition for quality performance. Accountability
Employees want their training needs assessed. Accountability,
Training

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

104
Rationale for Narrowing Primary Causes to Accountability
As can be seen in Table 8, while there are several validated causes, all of these causes can
be sorted into three basic perceived need areas. These three perceived need areas are
accountability, empowerment, and training. Correspondingly, as reflected in the ANP EVS
results, the three lowest scoring out of all 14 EVS categories were: (1) the Performance-Based
Rewards & Advancement Index with 35% positive employee satisfaction ratings, (2) the
Effective Leadership - Empowerment Index with 38% positive employee satisfaction ratings, and
(3) the Training/Development Index with 39% positive employee satisfaction ratings. These low
ANP EVS ratings were also strongly supported by evidence from the observation of facilitated
ANP employee sessions, as well as evidence from the ANP interviews.
In examining all of the eight validated causes listed above for low ANP employee
satisfaction, 75% of the validated causes of low ANP employee satisfaction (six out of eight) are
directly or indirectly related to accountability. As research indicates, if an accountability culture
of an organization is reciprocal and fair, employees will tend to be more trusting of their leaders,
more satisfied, more committed, perform better individually and collaboratively, and have less
turnover intention (Lee & Jimenez, 2011; Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006).
Therefore, in order to address the top validated causes of low ANP employee satisfaction,
the solutions proposed in this chapter will focus primarily on the issue of accountability.
Meanwhile, the other concern areas of empowerment and training will be also be incorporated
through the issue of accountability and the accompanying implementation plan.
Accountability Revisited
Organizations have mistakenly attempted to reform their formal accountability systems
(i.e., their appraisal forms, surveys, on-line vs. paper data collection systems, and rating system)
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

105
without paying greater attention to the informal accountability issues that really matter (Lawler,
Benson, & McDermott, 2012). Instead, a more effective solution would be to incrementally
work towards developing a “culture” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 107) of reciprocal accountability
(Elmore, 2002). Developing this culture would involve leaders holding themselves accountable
for employee capacity building first (i.e., equipping employees with prerequisite knowledge and
skills to be successful), prior to holding their employees accountable for subsequent performance
expectations. This cultural transformation would require the integration of solutions from all
three areas (Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization) and would need to start off at the top,
where senior leaders and managers, not the Human Relations (HR) department, take ownership
of the performance management system (Bracken & Rose, 2011; Lawler et al., 2012).
Closely affiliated with the issue of accountability, the study of organizational justice has
received much attention from researchers and has become a popularly researched topic in the
field of human resource management, industrial-organizational psychology, and organization
behavior (Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007; Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997).
Cropanzano et al. (2007) define organizational justice as the degree to which individuals believe
the outcomes they receive and the ways they are treated within organizations are aligned,
equitable, and fair with respect to expected moral and ethical standards. Perceptions of
organizational justice constitute an important role in organizational decision-making, as research
reveals that it is related to job satisfaction, job performance, turnover, organizational citizenship,
organizational commitment, leadership, and trust (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Kim
(2009) found that employees who perceived that they were treated fairly by their company were
likely to hold more commitment, trust, and higher levels of job satisfaction than employees who
perceived that they were treated unfairly. In a longitudinal study of the perceptions of
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

106
organizational justice as a predictor of job satisfaction, Bakhshi, Kumar, and Rani (1990)
discovered that “those who perceive justice in their organization are more likely to feel satisfied
with their job and feel less likely to leave and feel more committed to their job” (p. 150).
In contrast to when employees perceive the existence of organizational justice/fairness,
Cole, Bernerth, Walter, and Holt (2010) indicated that perceptions of unfairness may take an
emotional toll on individuals, causing stress and disrupting organizational attitudes and
behaviors. These researchers argue that organizations can minimize potential stressors by
promoting positive social environments and establishing strong procedures for fairness.
Organizational justice/fairness can be divided into four types (Collins, Mossholder, &
Taylor, 2012; Colquitt, Wesson, Porter, Conlon, & Ng, 2001; Greenberg, 1986; Kim &
Rubianty, 2011): distributive, procedural, relational and informational justice. Relational and
informational justice originally formed one type, called “transactional justice” (Greenberg, 1986;
Colquitt et al., 2001). Also, some researchers later joined informational and procedural justice
together and labeled the combination “process fairness” (Collins et al., 2012). According to Kim
and Rubianty (2011), (a) distributive justice involves the perceived fairness of evaluation
outcomes relative to others (i.e., the fair distribution of resources, both rewards and punishments
based on one’s performance in relation to others; (b) procedural justice has to do with the
perception of fairness of the evaluation/appraisal process, and includes variables that affect this
perception, including the opportunity to express feelings when evaluated and discussion about
salary during evaluation; (c) according to Colquitt et al. (2001), interpersonal justice reflects how
employees feel they are treated (e.g., dignity, politeness, and respect) by authorities or third
parties who determine and/or carry out the outcomes; and (d) informational justice focuses on
explanations provided to employees by authorities or third parties that convey information
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

107
concerning the reasons why procedures were used or why outcomes were carried out in a
particular manner. These four types of justice were supported in the literature via factorial
analysis (Collins et al., 2012; Kim & Rubianty, 2011) and are important to understand, because
the accountability solutions can be classified under these four types of justice.
Solutions for Knowledge Causes
The data collected in Chapter 4 validated the causes for low employee satisfaction at
ANP. The proposed accountability solutions for the knowledge and skills needs are discussed
here.
Knowledge is categorized according to four dimensions: factual knowledge, conceptual
knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001).
Passing on knowledge typically involves learning new knowledge and skills. Learning is a
change in the learner’s knowledge initiated by experience and changes the learner (Mayer,
2011). In order to design appropriate solutions to the knowledge and skills gaps of ANP
employees and leaders, one must first identify the cognitive process needed to meet the learning
objective (Mayer, 2011). Solutions must be aligned with the knowledge dimensions and
cognitive processes. Utilizing the taxonomy table created by Anderson et al. (2001) as a
framework, the following cognitive processes help match appropriate solutions with learning
needs (Rueda, 2011):
1. Remember: Recognizing or recalling relevant knowledge form long-term memory.
2. Understand: Constructing meaning from oral and written sources.
3. Apply: Using a procedure in a specific situation.
4. Analyze: Breaking something into smaller parts and determining how they are
related to one another as well as to the overall structure, framework or purpose.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

108
5. Evaluate: Making judgments and distinctions based on specific criteria or standards.
6. Create: Forming a new structure, pattern, or whole from distinct elements.
Moreover, according to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge/skills development is
typically addressed in four ways: providing factual information (i.e., useful, necessary details to
help keep employees informed), providing job aids (i.e., self-help materials that employees can
easily refer to and utilize when performing a task), providing training (i.e., any situation where
employees must acquire “how to” knowledge and skills and where they need practice and
feedback to achieve organizational work goals), and education (i.e., any situation where
employees need conceptual, theoretical, and strategic knowledge and skills to help them handle
novel and unexpected challenges).
Therefore, solutions for gaps in the knowledge dimension, related to the accountability of
ANP employees and leaders, depend on the type of knowledge needed.
Employees Want More Factual Knowledge about Park Activities and Decisions
The first validated knowledge cause for low employee satisfaction is that employees
asserted that they need more transparent communication about multiple site activities and
decisions. ANP includes multiple sites, and many employees feel disconnected from the other
sites and the common issues (such as budget and temporary park closures) that face them. The
kind of knowledge the employees describe wanting in this case aligns with what Anderson et al.
(2001) describe as “factual knowledge,” which is knowledge of specific information and details.
Providing employees with transparent communication about multiple site activities, and
decisions at ANP has much to do with informational justice. Informational justice gauges the
adequacy, honesty, truthfulness, and timeliness of the information individuals receive from
organizational authorities (Colquitt et al., 2001). Colquitt et al. (2001) also imply that it is
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

109
reasonable to expect that an individual’s self-evaluations and self-worth would benefit if
organizations engage in open, trustworthy, and honest communication. Likewise, a lack of
informational justice may tend to diminish a person’s trust in management and thus lower their
self-esteem and may invoke perceptions of ambiguity because they lack sufficient information
about how resources are being allocated (Cropanzano et al., 2007).
Therefore, the solution to employees saying they do not know what is going on with ANP
as a conglomeration of park sites would to foster a culture and system of open, ongoing,
transparent communication, encouraging multiple avenues for 360-degree communication from
everyone in ANP (face-to face, e-mail, newsletter, webinar, Twitter, etc.), so that all employees
can communicate with one another and stay informed.
Employees Want More Conceptual Knowledge on Park Priorities and Budgetary Matters
The second validated knowledge cause for low employee satisfaction is that employees
asserted that they need more transparent communication and understanding about park priorities
and budgetary matters. ANP employees felt that they often lacked knowing and understanding
performance expectations, as well as understanding how the budget process operates. The kind
of knowledge the employees describe wanting in this case aligns with what Anderson et al.
(2001) describe as “conceptual knowledge,” which is knowing and understanding at a macro
level how things work together as a complex system.
Similar to their need for factual knowledge, providing employees with transparent
communication about park priorities and budgetary matters at ANP also has much to do with
informational justice (Colquitt et al., 2001). The primary difference here would be that
conceptual knowledge is more likely passed on via education rather than merely through the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

110
passing on of factual information, since understanding how things work to in a complex system
involves more in-depth explanation and demonstration.
Employees Want More Training Opportunities that are Relevant to their Jobs
ANP Employees expressed a need for more training opportunities that are relevant to
their jobs. Two particular recurring themes applicable for the types of training needed include
communication skills and a procedural knowledge of how to carry out their jobs. The solution to
this problem involves both informational justice (as introduced under the factual knowledge
section) and procedural justice, which when combined together, is called process justice (Collins
et al., 2012).
Regarding the improvement of communication skills, informational justice would involve
both the giving and receiving of accurate feedback from self, peers, leaders/managers, coaches,
and others (including the public) regarding an individual employee’s performance, which is best
given on an ongoing basis (Bracken & Rose, 2011). In their review of the literature, Bracken
and Rose (2011) identified four critical features of useful, effective feedback: (a) relevant
content (i.e., relevant information given to the employee to improve performance); (b) credible
data (i.e., both the source and the information given are reliable and accurate); (c) accountability
and follow-up (i.e., the person giving feedback administers appropriate praise and consequences
to the employee); and (d) census participation (i.e., that everyone, including the leaders,
participates in the accountability and evaluation process, both the giving and receiving of 360-
degree feedback on performance). The authors identified the accountability and follow-up
feature as the “sine qua non” (p. 189) (essential ingredient) of effective behavior change.
Similarly, Lawler et al. (2012) indicate that the highest impact items involve process and
management leadership, not the technical structure of appraisal forms and systems (i.e.,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

111
employee-leader jointly set goals that are strategy driven; ownership and leadership of senior
management in the appraisal process; and the separation of the development discussion from the
appraisal discussion—how an employee can improve versus being given a final performance
rating). Locke and Latham (2002) and McKnight et al. (2001) found that feedback positively
affects employee morale, employee-supervisor relationship closeness, and harmonious
teamwork.
The literature is full of suggestions on how effective formative and summative feedback
can be given prior and during performance appraisals. Formative feedback is feedback given to
employees to help develop and improve their performance, and is not given for evaluative
purposes. On the other hand, summative feedback is given when performance appraisals are
evaluative in nature (i.e., a performance rating is assigned). In their literature review, Pulakos
and O’Leary (2011) point out that the informal, continuous feedback process is the most
important feedback that can be given. Moreover, the authors found that while multi-source
feedback (i.e., from peers, others, and leaders) is most effective when used for developmental
and formative purposes (i.e., for training and improvement), it is best that managers should
determine the final annual performance/summative ratings (i.e., for evaluations). Lawler et al.
(2012) also mention that development conversations are best kept separate from any performance
appraisal impact on rewards discussion, so that employees are able to hear and consider
developmental feedback concerns. Essentially, having separate discussions implies having more
than one meeting over a period of time. Kim and Rubianity (2011) also argue for a clear cutoff
point that can distinguish above average performers from below average ones. In addition,
Lawler et al. (2012) and Pulakos and O’Leary (2011) posit the need for differentiating levels of
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

112
job complexity and how employees are rated according to their levels, as some jobs require
relatively simple skills while others may require relatively complex skills.
Solutions involving informational justice would likely involve training on rater accuracy
and calibration, where evaluators would be trained to be more consistent amongst each other
(Eremin, Wolf, & Woodard, 2010; Lawler et al., 2012; Pulakos & O’Leary, 2011). Furthermore,
London, Mone, and Scott (2004) mention the usefulness of Rater Error Training (RET)
(particularly helpful for accurately making final rating distinctions among employees), Frame-of-
Reference (FOR) Training (particularly helpful for giving feedback to employees for
development and goal setting), and training on structured diary keeping and structured recall
(particularly helpful to gather and recall observation data for feedback). Next, training would be
beneficial on the giving and receiving of information and feedback (London et al., 2004).
Finally, additional training for employees might include providing information on the
transformational change process (Brown & May, 2012), skill building as needed, and
informational training on the evolving performance evaluation system and any corresponding
changes in expectations (Kim & Rubianty, 2011).
Regarding improving employees’ knowledge to carry out their jobs, procedural justice, as
defined by Folger and Konovsky (1989), focuses on the fairness in the manner in which the
decision-making process is conducted. Stated another way, the focus of the decision-making
shifts from what was decided to how the decision was made. Procedural justice theory is
concerned with the judgments about the process or means by which allocation decisions are
made (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Leventhal’s (1980) theory of procedural
justice focuses on six criteria that a procedure should meet if it is to be perceived as fair.
Procedures should: (a) be applied consistently across people and time; (b) be free from bias;
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

113
(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 personal or prevailing
standards of ethics or morality; and (f) ensure that the opinions of various groups affected by the
decision has been taken into account. Bakhshi et al. (2009) also discovered that procedural
justice was positively correlated with job satisfaction. Judge and Colquitt (2004) noted,
“Procedural justice is valued because it makes long-term outcomes more controllable and
predictable,” (p. 396) while an absence of procedural justice is likely to cause insecurity about
the availability of important resources, signifying a lack of resources. Researchers such as
Barclay, Skarlicki, and Pugh (2005) and Folger (1993) concluded that procedural justice
violations promote several forms of emotional distress, including aggravation, anger, ill will, and
resentment.
In addition to the six criteria mentioned above, procedural justice involves an
organization having a clear mission, clearly aligned strategies, standards, performance criteria,
measures, goals, and expectations. Having such clarity and alignment leads to higher employee
satisfaction, perceptions of fairness, and performance (Breaux, Munyon, Hochwarter, & Ferris,
2009; Kim & Rubianty, 2011; Lawler et al., 2012; London et al., 2004; Pulakos & O’Leary,
2011). Moreover, process fairness (a combination of procedural and informational fairness) is
related to employees’ intrinsic motivation (London et al., 2004) and strongly related to job
performance, although modified if an employee plans to leave (Collins et al., 2012).
Solutions involving procedural justice would likely include providing training on setting
performance expectations and goal setting (Lawler et al., 2012; London et al, 2004). Essentially,
at least once a year, role-alike groups can be gathered to set performance goals for the year. The
motivational hub of goal-setting consists of personally set, challenging goals, goal commitment,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

114
and self-efficacy (an employee’s belief that he or she can bring about positive outcomes) as
indicated by Locke and Latham (2002). Pulakos and O’Leary (2011) argue that some
researchers are finding that cascading and SMART (specific, measureable, attainable, realistic,
and timely) goals are not necessarily effective and perhaps should be replaced with HARD
(heartfelt, animated, required, difficult) goals (Leadership IQ, 2010). These performance goals
would then be reviewed, revised if necessary, and approved with the help of the employee’s
supervisor.
Synthesis of Knowledge Solutions
In essence, then, the solution to employees’ perceived lack of factual and conceptual
knowledge and their perceived lack of training opportunities would be to develop a system and
culture of reciprocal accountability, where performance expectations are clear, goals are jointly
set with employees, appropriate training is provided, and employees are provided with ongoing
feedback and communication so that they can improve or maintain high levels of performance.
Solutions for Motivation Causes
Motivation is a factor that influences a person’s active choice, persistence, and mental
effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). As such, motivation “initiates and maintains goal directed
behavior” (Mayer, 2011, p. 39).
In relation to accomplishing one’s work, an employee’s motivation can potentially be
affected by five personal factors: values, interest, self-efficacy, goal orientation, and attribution.
Regarding values, the closer an employee’s values are tied to the work assigned, the more likely
the employee will be motivated to accomplish the task. In terms of interests, the more interested
an employee is in the task assigned, the more likely the employee is to complete the task. If an
employee has a demonstrated history of showing responsible, disciplined behavior in completing
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

115
a task, that employee is considered to have self-efficacy. An employee that has high self-
efficacy is more likely to complete a task than an employee that has low self-efficacy. If an
employee is in the habit of setting goals and methodically accomplishing them, that employee is
considered to have a goal orientation. Those employees that are not in the habit of setting and
reaching goals are not goal-oriented. Goal-oriented employees are more likely to accomplish
tasks than non-goal-oriented employees. When employees fail a task, they can either blame
themselves or blame someone or something outside of themselves. Likewise, when employees
succeed in accomplishing a task, they can either take credit for the accomplishment or may
assign the credit outside themselves. Who or what the employee attributes their failures or
successes to (internally or externally) is a matter of attribution. Those who attribute their failures
and successes to themselves are more likely to carry out an assigned task than those who
attribute their failures and successes to someone or something other than themselves.
Bandura (1997b) asserted that self-efficacy influences the choice of activities, and
expectancy of success determines the level of sustained effort in the face of challenges; what
employees believe about themselves will influence their beliefs about what they are capable of
doing with regard to an innovation. According to Clark and Estes (2008), when individuals do
not believe they can be successful, they will switch to less important tasks.
Employees’ motivation can also be affected by their environment, such as how they are
treated by their boss and organization, how well they work with other employees as a unit, the
recognition, rewards, and punishments (incentives) that are assigned as a consequence to the
employee’s efforts, as well as the freedom of choice and empowerment given to employees as to
how they will accomplish a task (Clark & Estes, 2008).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

116
When examining the validated motivation causes of low ANP employee satisfaction, the
data revealed that ANP employees perceive themselves to have sufficient internal motivation,
but they feel that their environment presents three external challenges. More specifically, ANP
employees want to feel empowered in their job processes, be involved in decisions that affect
their jobs, and be recognized when they do a good job. The first two motivational causes
mentioned are related to empowerment and transformational leadership, while the third cause is
related to the issue of distributive justice.
Employees Want to Feel Empowered and to be Involved in Decision-Making
As mentioned under document analysis, four out of seven groups chose empowerment
and decision-making a central theme. One of their solutions involves setting up a cross-team
work group comprised of representatives from each park division, and is closely aligned with
this idea. Members of the team can act as enhancers of communication, giving and receiving
information and feedback to and from their divisions to ANP leadership. Moreover, these cross-
team work groups can also be given some important, empowering initiatives to work on, which
would give them and all ANP employees the opportunity for decision-input/involvement.
Regarding empowerment and transformational leadership, employees are more likely to
be motivated and inspired to perform their best when they feel they are treated as equals rather
than subordinates, when they feel their advice is solicited and taken into consideration, and when
they are encouraged to be creative and innovative in their decision-making (Fernandez, 2008;
Northouse, 2012; Wang & Howell, 2010).
Therefore, solutions to developing an empowering environment would involve setting up
a system where employees can be informed of issues that will affect their jobs, be given
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

117
opportunities to give their input before key decisions are made, and be given some flexibility to
be creative and innovative when appropriate.
Employees Want to be Recognized When They Do a Good Job
Regarding distributive justice, there is strong support that contingent consequences (when
pay, promotion, rewards, recognition, and punishment are delivered based upon one’s
performance) are associated with higher perceived employee satisfaction, trust in leadership,
organizational commitment, individual and group performance, and intentions to stay within the
organization (Liff, 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2006; Podsakoff, Podsakoff, & Kuskova, 2010; Schay
& Fisher, 2013; Swiss, 2005) compared to when consequences/outcomes are distributed non-
contingently (i.e., outcomes not distributed in fair accordance to their performance). Regarding
non-contingent outcomes, politics can have a negative effect on employee performance (Breaux
et al., 2009) as can abusive styles of leadership (Breaux et al., 2008).
Adams (1965) stated via his groundbreaking work in social exchange theory that within
distributive justice, employees determine whether they have been treated fairly at work by
comparing their own payoff ratio of outcomes (pay or status), to inputs (effort or time), and to
the ratio of their co-workers. Moreover, he asserts that people are not necessarily concerned
about the ratio of outcomes, but whether those outcomes were fair. Folger and Konovsky (1989)
concluded that distributive justice presents employees’ perceptions about the fairness of
managerial decisions relative to the distribution of outcomes such as pay and promotions.
Bakhshi et al. (2009) found that distributive justice was positively correlated with job
satisfaction.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

118
Therefore, regarding the solution to employees wanting to be recognized for doing a good
job, distributive justice calls for such recognition and appreciation to be contingently based upon
their performance, rather than non-contingently.
Synthesis of Motivation Solutions
While one solution to employee motivation concerns would be to focus on employees’
internal motivation (hiring capable, self-motivated employees and increasing existing their self-
efficacy by providing them with requisite skills and knowledge to succeed), a more complete
solution would be to also provide employees with an external environment of empowerment and
distributive justice, with contingent rather than non-contingent consequences.
Solutions for Organization Causes
Clark and Estes (2008) stressed the importance of efficient and effective organizational
work processes and material resources in organizational gaps. According to Clark and Estes, the
work process is the link between people, materials, and equipment that produces the desired
outcomes. The misalignment of people, materials, and equipment are what lead to failure (Clark
& Estes, 2008). Gaps within the organization must be addressed by examining the relationship
and workings between the people, materials, and the equipment. Based on the validated causes
for the organization gap, the proposed solutions are discussed next.
The following is a summary of the validated organizational causes for low employee
satisfaction at ANP. All of the causes are either directly or indirectly related to the issue of
accountability. There were three validated organization causes for low ANP employee
satisfaction (D = distributive justice; I = informational justice; P = procedural justice; R =
relational justice):
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

119
Employees want to work in an environment where:
 Quality performance is recognized. (D)
 Their training needs are assessed. (P)
 Their leaders generate high levels of commitment and motivation. (D, I, P, R)
As one can see, the first organizational cause is tied to distributive justice, the second is
tied to procedural justice, and the last cause listed here is related to all four types of justice.
Employees Want Quality Performance to be Recognized
As evidenced by the facilitated employee sessions, employee action plans, and the
employee interviews, the theme again arose of employees asserting that the quality of job
performance was not recognized, rewarded, or punished (via praise, raises, promotions or
sanctions) according to the quality of their performance, but instead was subjective and often
depended on one’s supervisor and also their relationship to the supervisor. This theme speaks to
employees perceiving a culture of non-contingent rewards and punishment. Therefore, the
solution would be to develop a culture of contingent consequences and recognition, in line with
distributive justice.
Employees Want Their Training Needs to be Assessed
Another recurring theme was that employees asserted a lack of training assessment and
provision of relevant training to do their jobs well, as evidenced in the facilitated employee
sessions, employee action plans, and employee interviews. According to employees, this lack of
training and assessment was due in large part to federal budget cuts and sequestration
(incidentally, a government shutdown also occurred a couple months after the observation and
interviews). On the other hand, as evidenced by the observations of the facilitated employee
sessions and employee interviews, employees also perceived that there was a lack of
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

120
transparency when they recalled that they were told there was no money throughout most of the
fiscal year, and then suddenly towards the end of the year, they recalled that thousands of dollars
needed to be spent immediately. Likewise, there was a consistent perception by a group of
employees who could not understand where the money went when positions went unfilled.
This perceived need again speaks to the need for informational justice, and particularly
the need for transparency in communication (both of which have been discussed). Essentially,
when budgets, decisions, and priorities are communicated and explained, employees are more
likely to understand situations and perceive themselves to be working in an environment of care,
respect, trust, and fairness.
Employees Want Their Leaders to Generate High Levels of Commitment/Motivation
As mentioned earlier, if an accountability culture of an organization is reciprocal and fair,
employees will tend to be more trusting of their leaders, more satisfied, more committed,
perform better individually and collaboratively, and have less turnover intention (Lee & Jimenez,
2011; Podsakoff et al., 2006). The observation of the facilitated ANP employee sessions, the
employee action plans, and employee interviews each validated that one cause for low ANP
employee satisfaction is the employees’ asserted need for leaders to generate higher levels of
commitment and motivation. While this validated cause relates to all four types of justice
(distributive, informational, procedural, and relational), particular attention will be paid on
relational justice since the topic has not yet been discussed in detail.
Interactional justice was the original label, which was later divided into interpersonal and
informational justice. Interpersonal justice is concerned with the quality of interpersonal
treatment during the implementation of the formal decision making process (Bies & Moag,
1986). This type of justice also reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

121
dignity, sensitivity, consideration, and respect by leadership. Colquitt et al. (2001) asserted that
unfair or degrading interactions, which are inconsistent with the key features of interpersonal
justice, may impose high demands and diminish a person’s sense of dignity and self-worth.
Regarding relational justice, Reinke (2003) states that trust is the most important
predictor of acceptance of the appraisal system rather than the quality of the appraisal system or
the processes supporting it. Moreover, Pulakos and O’Leary (2011) mention that over 30 years
of extensive research and practice have yielded performance management methods, tools, and
processes that should work well in theory, but that operational implementations have proven
disappointing in practice. They argue that instead of focusing on improving the formal
accountability systems, that the focus needs to shift to improving manager-employee
communications and aspects of the manager-employee relationship that are foundational for
effective performance management. In other words, without ongoing, open communication,
trust, and consistency, no formal accountability system can ever succeed.
With this in mind, solutions involving relational justice would include training employees
on the transformational and transactional change process (Brown & May, 2012), and on
developing empowering relationships (Breaux et al., 2008), and communication and trust
building (Kim & Rubianty, 2011; Pulakos & O’Leary, 2011; Schay & Fisher, 2013; Yang &
Kassekert, 2009). Pulakos and O’Leary (2011) give specific suggestions on how trust is built
(making realistic commitments and following through on what is promised, keeping employees
informed, showing support and not blaming when something goes wrong, helping employees
solve work problems, protecting people who are not present, sharing information even handedly
and openly, communicating consistent principles, and getting to know their employees and what
is going on in their lives inside and outside of work).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

122
In addition, according to Lencioni (2002), teams without trust of one another will not
engage in healthy conflict. Moreover, teams that lack trust dread meetings and find reasons to
avoid spending time together. Lencioni (2002) describes team trust as team members’
willingness to make themselves vulnerable to one another, and to have faith that the
vulnerabilities and weaknesses they expose to the group will not be used against them. Lencioni
(2002) suggests that trust building is a gradual process that requires shared experience over time,
various instances of trustworthiness, and an in-depth understanding of each team member’s
individual makeup. Lencioni (2002) provides various exercises to engage teams (Personal
Histories Exercise; Team Effectiveness Exercise; Personality and Behavioral Preferences
Profiles; and 360-degree Feedback, pp. 198-200). Finally, Lencioni (2002) highlights the critical
role of the team leader in building trust on the team by authentically demonstrating vulnerability
and creating an environment that does not punish vulnerability. It is important for leaders to find
productive ways to address conflict and tension.
Therefore, the solution to this perceived need of relational justice would be to provide
ANP employees with information, job aids, training, and education to understand and develop
communication, trust and transformational/transactional skills. While stated simply, education
on this issue would be ongoing and long-term, and not merely a short, one-time occasion.
Synthesis of Organization Solutions
Overall, ANP employees want to be recognized and appreciated for quality work,
contingent upon their actual performance; they want their training needs to be assessed and met
with relevant training opportunities; and they want their leaders to generate high levels of
motivation by providing them with an atmosphere of communication, trust, respect, and fairness.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

123
The primary solution to these issues is to develop an environment of informational, distributive,
procedural, and relational justice, as was just described.
Implementation Plan
Solution Integration
Using the Gap Analysis Framework, this study identified knowledge, motivation, and
organization gaps in order to examine the difference between ANP’s current employee
satisfaction level and the NPS organizational goal of becoming one of the top ten best places to
work in the Federal Government (Clark & Estes, 2008). Data collection validated the assumed
causes and solutions for the performance gaps were proposed. This section describes how the
solutions might be implemented at ANP.
While the Gap Analysis Framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) distinguishes between
knowledge solutions, motivation solutions and organizational solutions, this should not be
construed as a reason to treat each solution independently. Instead, Clark and Estes (2008)
recommend synthesizing solutions into a unified, comprehensive plan. Systems thinking (Senge,
1990) involves looking beyond individual parts of an organization, and into the complex web of
relationships among these parts in order to solve complex problems. Changing one part of the
system is likely to have impact on other parts of the system, either positively or negatively. On
the positive side, for example, improvement in communication about what is going on in the
park is likely to improve employees’ motivation and the overall culture of the organization. On
the negative side, to avoid the “whack-a-mole” effect (where one solution gets solved but
another arises in its place), not only must the plan be comprehensive, but must also be balanced.
Johnson (1996) speaks of the need to balance polarities (for example, the need for balance
between tasks and relationships; between structure and flexibility; and between positive and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

124
negative incentives), the idea being to maximize the benefits of each polarity, while also trying
to minimize each polarity’s detriments. For these reasons, the causes outlined in the previous
paragraphs will be treated from an integrated, systems thinking perspective, so that a balanced,
comprehensive solution plan can be developed.
The solutions for each of the validated causes for ANP’s low employee satisfaction
ratings are connected to one another. For example, the solutions suggested to begin closing the
knowledge gap will also contribute to closing the motivation and organization gaps. When ANP
begins implementing the proposed solutions, employees will notice immediately because the
actions are visible and tangible and satisfaction levels will begin to rise over time (if solution
implementation continues). That is, when the knowledge solutions are implemented (employees
are receiving accurate and timely information and communication from reliable sources; are
receiving first-hand information about issues affecting the park and their jobs; are receiving
information regarding how to be rated at the different performance levels; and are learning how
to communicate with other divisions), employees’ motivation will be positively affected because
they are beginning to see progress from the issues and concerns they highlighted. Employees
will begin to feel more valued as employees. Additionally, when solutions to the motivation
causes are implemented (leadership begins visiting employees in their work places to get to
know more about them and their jobs; employees are being empowered to make decisions about
how best to do their jobs effectively and efficiently; and employees are increasingly more
involved with decision-making processes), the knowledge and organization causes are also being
addressed because employees are experiencing increased communication and information about
the organization and their jobs, and leadership is discovering the resources required for park
employees to properly do the jobs they were hired to do.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

125
Importantly, establishing an effective accountability culture involves strategic planning,
which focuses on incremental improvement rather than trying to do everything all at once
(Stecher, 2010) and continuous monitoring/evaluation for improvement over time (London et al.,
2004; Schay & Fisher, 2013; Stecher, 2010; Swiss, 2005).
In Figure 8, Stecher (2010, p. 5) outlines his framework on how an existing performance
appraisal system, designed particularly for public service agencies, can evolve into a “culture of
consequences,” which he refers to as a Performance-Based Accountability System (PBAS).

Figure 8. Performance-based accountability systems

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

126
As can be seen above, the organization first examines its existing accountability system
(traditional oversight, existing service-delivery activity, and outputs) for problem recognition and
adoption, which is essentially the same as a gap analysis in that organizational goals and
performance gaps are determined and problems are identified. Second, performance goals,
measures, and incentives are realigned in an attempt to maximize performance. Third, the
improved system with interventions is implemented and monitored for a period of time. Fourth,
the system is evaluated to determine the effectiveness. Fifth, based on the evaluation,
refinements are made, particularly to the interventions, goals, measures, and incentives, and the
process goes through the cycle all over again for continuous improvement.
To begin this process of developing an effective PBAS, it is recommended that cross-
park work groups be assembled, comprised of all levels of employees to assist with overall
planning, communication, decision-making, and implementation. Members of these cross-park
work groups should be well-respected and representative of the larger group of park employees.
One cross-park work group would assist the leader in rolling out the PBAS, perhaps
beginning with a barbeque picnic where everyone is invited (both leaders and employees, except
minimal temporary staff needed to run the park) to introduce the positive changes that are about
to take place. From there, an ongoing campaign would be carried out, where the cross-park work
group will meet once or twice a month to brainstorm, plan, and execute ways to increase 360-
degree communication (e.g., task force members regularly report back to and get feedback and
input from their constituents, utilizing various communication means, such as a face-to-face,
newsletters, e-mail, letters, phone calls, etc.); demonstrate care, respect, and appreciation for
quality performance; transform the existing performance appraisal system into a PBAS; and
provide accessible and relevant training to employees (on topics such as communication, trust,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

127
respect, fairness, goal setting, coaching, and giving and receiving accurate feedback). A good
place to start would be to revisit the seven action plans that employees themselves formulated
during the facilitated employee sessions (and tying them back into research-based solutions
discussed regarding communication, recognition, and empowerment). Whatever activities are
decided upon and incrementally implemented (having given all employees ample opportunity for
input) will need to be gauged for success (as will be described in Chapter 6) to continuously
monitor and improve change efforts, using such measures as surveys, observation, and EVS
results.
Tables 9, 10, and 11 summarize the knowledge, motivation and organization causes;
solutions; and implementation of the solutions to aid in closing the gaps in ANP’s employee
satisfaction ratings. Table 12 summarizes the goals, timelines, and measures to determine
progress.
As Kim and Rubianty (2011) and Lawler et al. (2012) point out, performance appraisals
are not likely to go away despite the challenges and lack of progress in the last decade. Instead,
the information performance appraisals provide are useful for HR decisions and may end up
becoming even more useful (to maximize organizational effectiveness and health) when the
informal accountability systems of relationships, open communication, trust, respect, fairness,
and consistency are paid attention and become part of the everyday culture of the organization.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

128
Table 9
Summary of Knowledge Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the Solutions
Causes Solutions Implementation
Employees want increased
communication concerning
site priorities, activities,
decisions, and budgetary
concerns (Factual and
Conceptual Knowledge).
Practice informational justice by
providing timely, transparent
communication with employees at
all levels, use multiple
communication channels, listen to
others’ points of view, and
respond to employees’ issues and
concerns (Colquitt et al., 2001;
Cropanzano et al., 2007).
Cross-park work group
(comprised of employees
representative of all
divisions and levels) attend
leadership meetings on a
regular basis and schedule
monthly meetings with
leadership to inform
leadership of the type and
amount of information,
education, and training they
need to receive.
Employees want relevant,
accessible training for their
current job.
Practice professional and
reciprocal accountability, and
procedural justice by providing
training to employees on goal
setting, and giving and receiving
accurate feedback (Burke, 2005;
Elmore, 2002; Lawler et al., 2012;
London et al., 2004)
Cross-park work group will
plan, develop, and
implement training on goal
setting and giving and
receiving feedback.

Table 10
Summary of Motivation Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the Solutions
Causes Solutions Implementation
Employees want to feel
empowered in their work
processes.
Employees want to be
involved in the decisions that
affect their jobs.
Employs want recognition for
doing a good job.
Keep employees informed of key
issues, encourage
innovation/creativity, and solicit
their input (Fernandez, 2008;
Northouse, 2012; Wang &
Howell, 2010).
Practice distributive justice (Liff,
2007; Podsakoff et al., 2006).
Cross-park work groups
(referred to in Tables 9
and 11) will help bridge
communication, decision-
making, and recognition
between leadership and
employees.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

129

Table 11
Summary of Organization Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the Solutions
Causes Solutions Implementation
Employees want to be
recognized for quality
performance and products.
Practice distributive justice
by providing consequences
(e.g., promotion, rewards,
incentives, and recognition)
that are consistently applied,
based upon employee
performance (Liff, 2007;
Podsakoff et al., 2006).
Cross-park work group will
plan, develop, and implement
a rewards, recognition, and
awards committee. This
committee does not
necessarily have to be the
same people as the cross-park
communication and training
work groups.
Employees want a working
environment that generates
high levels of commitment
and motivation.
Practice distributive justice,
and transparency in
communication (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Colquitt et al.,
2001; Liff, 2007; Podsakoff
et al., 2006).
Leadership and cross-team
work group will work
together and make every
effort to talk with employees
and find out what resources
they need (equipment, people,
and funds) to do their jobs
and provide needed resources
as soon as possible.
Employees want their training
needs to be assessed.
Practice informational,
procedural, and distributive
justice as already mentioned,
and relational justice in
particular, which involves
training employees to build
communication and trust
(Lencioni, 2002; Podsakoff et
al., 2010; Pulakos & O’Leary,
2011).
The cross-team work group
will plan and incrementally
roll out training employees on
building communication and
trust.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

130

Table 12
Summary of Organization’s Main, Short-Term, Cascading, and Performance Goals
Organizational goal: Improve ANP employees’ positive ratings by 10 percent on the 2016 EVS
Goal 1:
Superintendent will appoint a
cross-team work group to use
effective channels to
communicate more directly
with employees.
Goal 2:
Superintendent and cross-
team work group will
convene 1-2 times a month to
plan an incremental roll out
the enhanced PBAS.
Goal 3:
Superintendent and cross-
team work group will devise
and carry out a training plan
for employees.
Cascading Goal 1:
Superintendent and cross-
team work group will
increase information to
employees about issues
affecting the workplace and
employees’ jobs.
Cascading Goal 2:
Superintendent and cross-
team work group will engage
more with employees and will
encourage employees to
become more involved in the
organization by increasing
communication, trust, and
fairness, and participatory
decision-making.
Cascading Goal 3:
Superintendent and cross-
team work group will ensure
employees have adequate
training to perform their jobs
effectively and advance when
opportunities arise.
Performance Goal:
Beginning 1 April, 2014, the
first work day of each month,
Superintendent and cross-
team work group will provide
(using the most effective
channels) employees with
information about issues
affecting the park and their
jobs.
Measure: Survey.
Performance Goal:
Beginning 1 April, 2014, the
Superintendent and cross-
team work group will pick a
site each month, within ANP,
to physically visit and talk
with employees in their
workplace about the new
PBAS rollout.
Measure: Observing
superintendent’s and
employees’ participation.
Performance Goal:
Beginning 1 April, 2014,
while on their monthly
employee site visit, the
Superintendent and cross-
team work group will talk to
employees and find out what
they need and what they are
missing (training) to do their
jobs effectively.
Measure: Survey and
observing superintendent’s
and employees’ participation.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

131
Table 12, continued
Organizational goal: Improve ANP employees’ positive ratings by 10 percent on the 2016 EVS
Performance Goal:
By 1 May, 2014, the
Superintendent and cross-
team work group will conduct
a briefing for all park
employees (rotating times to
accommodate shifts) to
discuss and explain the role
of each park division in the
park’s overall mission,
objectives, and vision.
Measure: Survey.
Performance Goal:
Beginning 1 May 2014, the
Superintendent and cross-
team work group will begin
implementing a PBAS plan to
build goal-setting, ongoing
communication and feedback,
fairness, trust, and respect,
and allow employees the
latitude to make decisions
that will allow them to do
their jobs adequately and
effectively.
Measure: Observing
employees’ performance and
effect on employees’
workplace decision-making.
Performance Goal:
Two weeks after each
monthly site visit, the
superintendent and cross-
team work group will respond
directly to employee(s) (using
the most effective channels)
regarding the status of any
training and resource needs
detected during his monthly
site visit.
Measure: Observing
superintendent and
employees’ participation and
effect on employs’ ability to
perform work duties.
Performance Goal:
Beginning 1 Jun, 2014, the
Superintendent and cross-
team work group will
implement a weekly cross-
flow shadow program that
requires one employee from
each division to coordinate
time to visit a coworker in a
different division to facilitate
communication and
cooperation among park
employees.
Measure: Survey and
observing employees’
continued communication
with divisions visited.
Performance Goal:
Beginning 1 June, 2014, the
Superintendent and cross-
team work group will invite
employees (using the most
effective channels) to
participate in the
organization’s PBAS
improvement process.
Measure: Observing
employees’ participation.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

132
Summary
Research literature regarding knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization gap
solutions to low employee satisfaction were the basis of the solutions and implementation
proposed in this chapter. In order to monitor the progress and effectiveness of the proposed
solutions and implementation, a system of evaluation is presented in the Discussion in Chapter 6.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

133
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this case study is to assist Anuenue National Park (ANP) leadership in
identifying the perceived causes for low employee satisfaction within ANP, and then based on
these findings to propose relevant, research-based solutions. Utilizing the conceptual framework
of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, the inquiry questions that framed this study were:
1. What are the perceived knowledge, motivation, and organization causes of low
employee satisfaction within the NPS, and in particular, at ANP?
2. Based on the findings to the first research question, what are the recommended
solutions to address these perceived causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
Whereas Chapter 5 focused on examining and recommending solutions for low employee
satisfaction at ANP, Chapter 6 will now focus on the last stage of the gap analysis process, the
evaluation of the impact or outcomes of the solutions. Evaluation is a vital step in the gap
analysis process since it provides evidence of whether or not the solutions are working to close
the gap being studied (Rueda, 2011).
To determine the impact of the solutions in closing ANP’s employee satisfaction gap, the
framework of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four levels of evaluation model will be
applied and the framework will be discussed in detail shortly. These four evaluation levels will
help determine employees’ initial reactions and feelings about implemented solutions; whether
or not there have been changes in the knowledge, motivation, or organization areas that were
targeted; whether or not employees are continuing the behavior change after the intervention has
been completed; and whether or not the employee satisfaction gap has ultimately been closed.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

134
In addition to making recommendations for evaluation, this chapter includes a discussion
of the strengths and weaknesses of the gap analysis approach, followed by the limitations of this
case study, recommendations for future research, and lastly the conclusion of the study.
Recommendations for Evaluation
Without a systemic evaluation system, it can be difficult to determine whether or not an
implementation program is really working. Clark and Estes (2008) recommended Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four levels of evaluation as part of the framework for the gap analysis
process once solutions are implemented. Within this evaluation framework, solutions are
assessed at the following levels: (a) reactions (do the stakeholders like and find the interventions
valuable?); (b) learning or performance (what did they learn or, are they performing differently
during the intervention?); (c) transfer or behavior (are they using what they learned after the
intervention is completed?); and (d) impact (is the organization getting the bottom line results
they are after; i.e., is the gap being closed?).
Level 1: Reactions
Level 1 examines initial reactions stakeholders have towards the program of
implementation. Typically, participants are asked to answer survey questions regarding the
value and effectiveness of an intervention program. The survey measures emotional reactions
and perceived impact on persistence, motivation, and values. The survey may also include a few
questions on how much they enjoy the program and how confident they are in applying learning
strategies. If the solutions offered are perceived to be effective, the survey results will indicate
positive feedback from the stakeholders.
In essence then, this evaluation level will help assess how satisfied or how motivated
ANP employees are to implement the suggested solutions. Immediately following the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

135
implementation of the plan, ANP employees will be asked to complete a list of survey questions
to determine how enthusiastic they are about implementing the suggested solutions and whether
or not they are confident that these interventions will positively increase communication, respect,
trust, employee skills (goal setting and giving/receiving feedback), employee involvement in
decision-making, recognition, and contingent rewards to close the employee satisfaction gap.
The survey will have questions that have Likert-scale ratings ranging from very confident to not
at all confident.
Once the intervention program is underway and the questionnaire is administered, it is
expected that ANP employees will be enthusiastic about the implementation of the solutions to
increase employee satisfaction at work.
While Level 1 reactions is a logical place to start to gauge whether or not the organization
is heading off to a good start, measurement at this level involves initial perceptions only and is
insufficient on its own to measure desired outcomes, hence the necessity of the next three levels
of evaluation.
Level 2: Learning or Performance
Level 2 of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) framework evaluates the intervention
program’s effectiveness during the program implementation period (Clark & Estes, 2008), and
seeks to measure whether there have been changes in knowledge, motivation, and organization
that were targeted as causes of the performance gap. Typically, pre- and post-test measures are
administered to gauge such changes.
At ANP, knowledge changes will be assessed using a pre-post questionnaire. For
example, employees can be assessed on their knowledge of procedural goals and expectations
and how they fit with the NPS mission, and on their goal setting, giving/receiving feedback,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

136
communication, trust building, and decision-making skills. However, motivational and
organizational changes at this level are best evaluated using direct observation rather than self-
reporting (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Therefore, the measures used to assess
motivational and organizational changes will include NPS leaders’ direct observation of changes
in employees’ motivation, performance, and participation.
It is expected that ANP interventions targeting change in knowledge, motivation, and
organization will result in increased communication, respect, trust, fairness, and employee
participation in the organization’s decision-making processes.
While Level 2 goes beyond Level 1 measurement of employees’ initial reactions and
perceptions to gauge employees’ increased knowledge and change in behavior, such changes do
not necessarily translate into permanent change in the workplace, and thus the necessity of Level
3 evaluation.
Level 3: Transfer of Knowledge and Behavior
Level 3 evaluates the extent of the organization’s ongoing results after the program is
implemented (Clark & Estes, 2008), and helps assess whether employees have transferred their
new learning and behavior into their workplace setting. Typically, this transferred learning and
behavior is assessed by leaders observing the work setting and assessing the extent of the change.
At ANP, this level will be assessed using both interviews (conversations) and observation
to determine if the knowledge, motivation, and organization solutions contributed to improved
employee satisfaction and if that improvement is continuing over time and/or tasks. Do the
employees and leaders report improved communication, respect, trust, fairness, and employee
involvement in decision making?
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

137
It is expected that increased communication efforts, increased information and
knowledge, increased trust, increased respect, increased fairness, and increased focus on
including employees in the organization’s decision-making processes will be observed as
occurring in the workplace.
While positive employee reactions to implementing the intervention program, change in
knowledge and behavior during the intervention program, and transfer of learning and behaviors
into the everyday workplace after the intervention program are all indicators of change, Levels 1,
2, and 3 alone will not help evaluators determine that such changes will lead to the bottom line
results that were sought (i.e., increased employee satisfaction), and thus the need for Level 4.
Level 4: Impact/Results
Level 4 evaluates the impact of changes on organizational goals, examining whether or
not progress is made on bottom line results, and whether or not the gap is closing between
current performance and the anticipated goal of achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008). According
to Clark and Estes (2008), this level of evaluation is the most expensive and difficult to address.
Thus, if the Level 2 and Level 3 assessments do not result in positive evaluations, Level 4 should
not be conducted. On the other hand, if the other levels do show positive results, then it is
worthwhile pursue data analysis in Level 4.
This level will help assess whether or not the gap is closing or is closed. Specifically,
level four will assess whether or not the gap between ANP employees’ original satisfaction
ratings and the NPS leadership’s desired ratings is closing. Since the EVS is conducted
annually, employee satisfaction can be measured by examining the annual EVS results. In
addition, since employee satisfaction is linked with other variables, such as employee grievances,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

138
absenteeism, turnover, and visitor satisfaction, comparing baseline measures prior to
interventions with post measures after interventions will help to further assess impact.
While solution implementation is expected to begin improving employee satisfaction at
ANP, completely closing the gap will likely occur gradually, particularly since changes in
current patterns of communication, respect, trust, fairness, and employee involvement in
decision-making take time. In fact, while interventions are expected to begin closing the gap
within months of implementation, full gap closure may take several years.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Gap Analysis Approach
Clark and Estes (2008) point out that, “nearly all available organizational development
and change processes fail two out of every three times” and, “there is no best process for all
organizations at all stages of development” (p. 115). Even one of the most frequently used
models implemented by many organizations, the Total Quality Management (TQM) framework,
has had mixed results (Clark & Estes, 2008). With the Gap Analysis Model, there are at least ten
strengths and three weaknesses.
One strength of the gap analysis process is that it is a systematic process for helping an
organization to improve its effectiveness, analyzing root causes of problems (knowledge,
motivation, and organization) and aligning research-based solutions to those problems. Second,
the gap analysis process is customizable to fit different types of organizations with different
types of goals (team-based, network/virtual, horizontal, and pulsating organizations, as well as
organizations with skunk work teams) (Clark & Estes, 2008). A third strength of the gap
analysis process is that it proposes research-based solutions, which can increase the likelihood of
goal accomplishment. Fourth, the gap analysis process is goal-oriented, helping organizations to
determine cascading goals that establish an actionable intervention plan. Fifth, the gap analysis
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

139
process is then helpful in terms of scheduling actionable steps from the cascading goals. Sixth,
the gap analysis process is flexible in that if an intervention is not working, other steps in the
process can be revisited and adjustments can be made. Seventh, the gap analysis is helpful with
the inclusion of an evaluation step that assesses the effectiveness of implemented solutions.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizations are at risk of implementing incorrect
solutions and failing to close performance gaps without a valid and reliable evaluation system.
Other strengths include a focus on capacity building of employee knowledge and skills, the time
and resource savings that occur by targeted validated causes of performance gaps aligned with
research based solutions, and finally the focus on data-driven decision-making that accurately
identifies solutions that work and do not work, which increases the probability of effectively
closing performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
One weaknesses of the gap analysis is the time commitment that organizations and
employees must make to conduct the process. The time required when systematically
researching the literature that targets assumed causes; collecting and triangulating the data to
validate actual causes; identifying plausible, research-based solutions to these validated causes;
formulating and implementing an integrated plan; evaluating the effectiveness of the solutions;
and also making adjustments when solutions are found to be ineffective can all be overwhelming
to potential users of the gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2008). This is particularly true in
light of budget and human resource challenges that organizations typically face today. A second
weakness involves the human tendency to want to skip steps in the process in order to save time,
money, and effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). One reason organizations fail to see improvement and
results could be for this very reason that they did not fully carry out each step in the process.
Third, some organizations might not utilize the gap analysis because of they feel that the process
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

140
is too complicated and time-consuming (Clark & Estes, 2008). Admittedly, even within this case
study, artificial distinctions had to be made about where variables should primarily fall (whether
into the knowledge, motivation, or organization category), even though several variables might
include elements of two or even all three categories. On the other hand, while such distinctions
had to be made for the purpose of targeting causes and solutions, in the end solutions were re-
integrated into one plan. Therefore, prolonged worrying over which category each variable
belonged to ultimately was unnecessary.
Limitations
There are several limitations to the current study that will be discussed in this section.
First, the case study’s results are not generalizable to other populations because participants
came from one park within the NPS and were volunteers, not randomly selected. It should also
be noted that not all employees may have been fully represented in the EVS surveys, facilitated
sessions, and interviews (certain groups, such as seasonal and temporary workers, may not have
been adequately represented as was shared anecdotally with USC researchers by some park
participants).
Second, since participants voluntarily took part in this study, precaution should be taken
into consideration regarding their motives. In other words, participants may have volunteered to
inflate or deflate survey or interview responses. Disenfranchised participants could have
volunteered to take part in the study because they want to ensure more positive or negative
opinions in order to underscore their points.
A third limitation might be in the participants’ interpretations of questions being asked on
the survey or during the facilitated discussion sessions and interviews. That is, participants
might interpret “leadership” or other vital constructs differently and might respond to survey or
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

141
interview questions based on their own unique understanding of the terms. Furthermore,
participants might misinterpret the level of leadership referred to in the EVS survey, facilitated
sessions, or interview questions (confusing or interchanging labels such as park leadership with
immediate supervisors, managers, superintendents, and national NPS leaders). In other words,
the participants might interpret these levels to mean those higher in the organization when their
immediate leadership was intended or vice versa.
A fourth limitation is the possibility that participants were reluctant to be fully truthful in
their responses during the facilitated discussion sessions or interview for fear of reprisal (facing
possible retribution, punishment, or job loss). Any of these limitations could result in faulty or
inaccurate information gathered in the survey, facilitated observations, or interviews, and prove
to be less helpful in attempting to close the employee satisfaction gap at ANP.
Since this case study is primarily a qualitative study, additional limitations will be
pointed out. In particular, qualitative studies are time-consuming because data that are collected
via observations and interviews are subject to being influenced by researcher’s bias; as such,
qualitative studies are considered by some to have low credibility because of the limitations
discussed (McEwan & McEwan, 2003).
A possible confounding factor in this case study revolves around the recurring issue of
budget cuts, sequestration, and the recent government shutdown. Some might suggest that low
employee satisfaction could primarily be a function of continuous budget issues, shortage of
manpower, and necessary resources, which are ultimately outside the control of the NPS. In
other words, some might suggest that employee satisfaction can increase only when there is a
strong economy and the NPS no longer faces budget cuts. While there may be some truth to the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

142
connection between employee satisfaction and budget issues, the research of the literature
included in Chapter 2 indicates employee satisfaction is determined by other primary factors.
One other limitation to note is that of the three sources of data utilized in this case study
(i.e., facilitated session observations, document analysis of action plans, and employee
interviews) each were snapshots in time, each conducted within a few hours in a day. However,
in reality changes occur frequently. For example, many leaders and employees might have left
and there are newer people in their positions. Although triangulation of data is sought, some
important data may have been ignored due to changes that have taken place since the 2012 EVS
survey was administered.
To address many of the limitations above and increase the validity of the results in the
current study, several actions were taken such as collecting the data from different sources
(triangulation), discussing with participants how confidentiality would be ensured, clarifying
construct terms during the interviews, member checking to strengthen the accuracy of the data,
revealing research biases, and including rich descriptions of the findings (McEwan & McEwan,
2003). Additionally, to increase reliability (consistency of research approach), a step-by-step
documentation of the procedures was employed, and adherence to a strict protocol of checking
transcripts for obvious errors that might have been made during transcription was followed.
Future Research
There are five main suggestions for further study on the topic of increasing employee
satisfaction within a large organization like the NPS. First, future researchers might consider a
larger and more random sampling of NPS employees from all divisions to increase validity and
reliability, and to ensure a more generalizable result. Second, more clarity and precision in the
wording of survey and interview items would help ensure constructs are fully understood and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

143
have the same meaning to all participants. Specifically, clear definition of terms and constructs
could be developed and provided to all participants, such as the levels of leadership being
referenced to, that each level is clear enough that participants know exactly whom they are
rating. Third, future researchers should make every effort to provide a safe environment during
the observation and interview process so that there is no fear of reprisal for participating openly.
Fourth, in addition to data collection from only employees, future researchers might consider
surveying other stakeholders, such as conducting a gap analysis with NPS park leaders to gain a
more complete picture of the organization and its effectiveness. Fifth, for a more robust
quantitative study, future researchers might consider comparing employee satisfaction data with
other quantitative data, such as employee performance indicators, absenteeism and turnover
rates, customer satisfaction levels, and hiring practices (e.g., how many employees were hired
from within the NPS versus how many employees were hired from the outside) to help further
clarify the relationship between employee satisfaction and other variables. Sixth, it would be
helpful to find groups and studies that were successful in significantly raising their employee
satisfaction, interviewing them and conducting a cognitive task analysis to discover how they
achieved their success.
In essence, utilizing a randomized sample of the target population and taking every
precaution to make sure that participants respond to survey items and interview questions with
the same frame of reference is vital for the NPS and other organizations to receive the most
credible information possible to effectively improve employee satisfaction ratings.
Implications and Conclusion
There are four main implications this study has to offer. First, the study can have a
positive impact on how the NPS recruits and trains new leaders to understand the perceptions
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

144
and workplace needs of employees. Second, the study can help provide considerations for new
staff orientations (addressing such issues as clearly communicating expectations, goal setting,
and giving/receiving feedback). Third, the study is helpful in considering incentives (rewards,
recognition, awards, etc.) as a way of implementing solutions. Fourth, the study highlights the
importance of considering employee perceptions in the workplace. Although employee
perceptions may not always be accurate, their perceptions do impact such variables as their job
performance, employee turnover, absenteeism, and customer (visitor) satisfaction.
The NPS has been administering and tracking the results of the EVS every year since
2002 to identify organizational strengths and improvement needs. Since 2008, NPS leadership
has set a goal of becoming one of the top ten best places in the Federal Government to work for
by the year 2016. Instead, results of the EVS survey have revealed increasingly lower employee
satisfaction ratings at many of its parks (Repanshek, 2012). To begin reversing this downward
slide, NPS leaders began conducting facilitated discussion sessions at many of its low-scoring
parks to improve leadership/management practices and strengthen employee commitment
through addressing effective communication, leadership, and career development strategies
(NPSAB, 2012).
The purpose of this study was to determine the knowledge, motivation, and organization
causes of and solutions for low employee satisfaction ratings at one particular park, ANP, using
the Gap Analysis Model (Clark & Estes, 2008). Triangulating the data collected from the
observation of facilitated discussion sessions, document analyses of employee action plans, and
the employee phone interviews helped identify and validate causes of the gap between
employees’ satisfaction ratings and ANP leadership’s desired employee ratings. Based on those
validated causes, solutions were recommended to begin closing ANP’s employee satisfaction gap
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

145
and Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-level evaluation model was suggested to assess
the effect of those solutions on closing the gap.
The validated causes for low employee satisfaction at ANP were that employees wanted
increased levels of communication, trust, fairness, respect, training, and employee participation
in decision-making. The solutions identified to increase ANP employees’ satisfaction ratings
included increasing open, ongoing communication and trust; clearly explaining the employee
performance rating system to employees and delivering contingent consequences; providing
accessible, relevant training opportunities; and increasing employee involvement in the park’s
decision-making processes. To determine the effectiveness of these solutions on closing the
employee satisfaction gap, ANP leadership should continuously monitor the results of the
solutions using appropriate assessment tools like interviews, surveys, questionnaires, or direct
observation, making adjustments where needed.
This study found that communication, trust, respect, fairness, employee participation in
decision-making, and adequate training are critical ingredients to ANP employee satisfaction.
Moreover, this study discovered that employee satisfaction is important to organizations because
high employee satisfaction translates into increased productivity, retention, and customer
(visitor) satisfaction. Low employee satisfaction is not a problem unique to the NPS or ANP. In
fact, the research reviewed in this study indicates that employee satisfaction is a challenge that
organizations worldwide have been concerned with for decades. Hopefully, the findings from
this study will help other organizations’ leaders who are experiencing low employee satisfaction
find plausible causes and effective solutions to their problem. It is also hoped that other
researchers will build upon this study’s findings to further the study on employee satisfaction.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

146
REFERENCES
Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (pp. 267-299). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Ainspan, N. D., & Dell, D. J. (2000). Employee communication during mergers. New York, NY:
Conference Board.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Creikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich,
P. R., . . . Wittick, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon (Pearson Education Group).
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.
Bakhshi, A., Kumar, K., & Rani, E. (2009). Organizational justice perceptions as predictor of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. International Journal of Business and
Management, 4(9), 145-154.
Bandura, A. (1997a). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1997b). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (2000a). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E.
A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organization behavior (pp. 120-136). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Bandura, A. (2000b). Exercise of human functioning through collective efficacy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

147
Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. (2005). Exploring the role of emotions in injustice
perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 629-643.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bies, J., & Moag, J. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J.
Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in
organizations (pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (4th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolton, M. (2003). Public sector performance measurement: Delivering greater accountability.
Work Study, 52(1), 20-24.
Bracken, D. W., & Rose, D. S. (2011). When does 360-degree feedback create behavior change?
And how would we know it when it does? Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 182-192.
Breaux, D. M., Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Politics as a
moderator of the accountability-job satisfaction relationship: Evidence across three
studies. Journal of Management, 35(2), 307-326.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

148
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.
Briggs, H., & McBeath, B. (2009). Evidence-based management: Origins, challenges, and
implications for social work administration. Administration in Social Work, 33(3), 242-
261.
Brown, W., & May, D. (2012). Organizational change and development: The efficacy of
transformational leadership training. Journal of Management Development, 31(6), 520-
536.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster.
Burke, J. C. (2005). The many faces of accountability. In J. C. Burke & Associates (Eds.),
Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market
demands (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, W. H. A. (2012). Self-
efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationship
between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 27(1), 115-132.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as
determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4),
821-832.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

149
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, 473-490.
Cherian, J., & Jacob, J. (2013). Impact of self efficacy on motivation and performance of
employees. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(14), 80-88.
Clampitt, P. G., & Downs, C. W. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship between
communication and productivity: A field study. The Journal of Business Communication,
30(1), 5-28.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making Processes, 86, 278-321.
Cole, M. S., Bernerth, J. B., Walter, F., & Holt, D. T. (2010). Organizational justice and
individuals’ withdrawal: Unlocking the influence of emotional exhaustion. Journal of
Management Studies, 47(3), 367-390.
Collins, B. J., Mossholder, K. W., & Taylor, S. G. (2012). Does process fairness affect job
performance? It only matters if they plan to stay. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33,
1007-1026.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York, NY: Harper-Collins.
Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., Conlon, D. E., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the
millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

150
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D., & Gilliland, S. (2007). The management of organizational justice.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 34-38.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through
the maze. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 317-372). New York, NY: Wiley.
Cushman, D. P., & Craig, R. T. (1976). Communication systems: Interpersonal implications. In
G. R. Miller (Ed.), Exploration in interpersonal communication (pp. 37-58). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Danford, A., Richardson, M., Stewart, P., Tailby, S., & Upchurch, M. (2008). Partnership, high
performance work systems and quality of working life. New Technology, Work and
Employment, 23(3), 151-166.
Darvish, H., & Rezaei, F. (2011). The impact of authentic leadership on job satisfaction and team
commitment. Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 6(3),
421-436.
DeSantis, V. S., & Durst, S. L. (1996). Comparing job satisfaction among public and private
sector employees. American Review of Public Administration, 26(3), 327-343.
De Waal, A. A. (2007). The characteristics of a high performance organization. Business
Strategy Series, 8(3), 179-185.
Downs, C. W., & Hain, T. (1982). Productivity and communication. In M. Burgoon (Ed.),
Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 435-453). New Brunswick, NJ: Transation Books.
Durst, S. L., & DeSantis, V. S. (1997). The determinants of job satisfaction among federal, state,
and local government employees. State and Local Government Review, 29(1), 7-16.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

151
Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2005). HRM practice and employee attitude: Different measures-
different results. Personnel Review, 34(5), 534-549.
Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the two
dimensional model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7(1), 15-26.
Ellickson, M. C. (2002). Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government employees.
Public Personnel Management, 31, 343-359.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, D.C.:
Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved January 2, 2014, from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/Bridging_Gap.pdf
Eremin, D. V., Wolf, J. F., & Woodard, C. A. (2010). Systemic bias in federal performance
evaluations: Does hierarchy trump a performance management process? Public
Performance & Management Review, 34(1), 7-21.
Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2012). Principal self-efficacy: Relations with burnout, job
satisfaction, and motivation to quit. Social Psychology Education, 15, 295-320.
Fernandez, S. (2008). Examining the effects of leadership behavior on employee perceptions of
performance and job satisfaction. Public Performance & Management Review, 32, 175-
205.
Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2011). Empowering public sector employees to improve
performance: Does it work? The American Review of Public Administration, 41(1), 23-
47.
Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee
grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15(1), 43-56.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

152
Folger, R. (1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology
in organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp. 161-183). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reaction
to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115-130.
Fortune 500. (2012). Fortune 500, 2012. Retrieved May 2, 2013, from
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/snapshots/11207.html
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.
Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71, 340-342.
Hall, A. T., Zinko, R., Perryman, A. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Organizational citizenship
behavior and reputation mediators in the relationships between accountability and job
performance and satisfaction. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(4),
381-392.
Hargie, O., Tourish, D., & Wilson, N. (2002). Communication audits and the effects of increased
information: A follow-up study. Journal of Business Communication, 39(4), 414-436.
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-
analytic comparisons for integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy
of Management Journal, 49(2), 305-326.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

153
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany: State University
of New York Press.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. UrbanEd, n.v.,
17-19.
Jex, S. M., & Bliese, P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related
stressors: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 349-361.
Jex, S. M., Bliese, P. D., Buzzell, S., & Primeau, J. (2001). The impact of self-efficacy on
stressor-strain relations: Coping style as an explanatory mechanism. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(3), 401-409.
Jo, S., & Shim, S. W. (2005). Paradigm shift of employee communication: The effect of
management communication on trusting relationships. Public Relations Review, 31(2),
277-280.
Johlke, M. C., & Duhan, D. F. (2000). Supervisor communication practices and service
employee job outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 154-165.
Johlke, M. C., Duhan, D. F., Howell, R. D., & Wilkes, R. W. (2000). An integrated model of
sales managers’ communication practices. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 28(2),
263-277.
Johnson, B. (1996). Polarity management: Identifying and managing unsolvable problems.
Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
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.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

154
Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of
work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 395-404.
Jung, 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(8), 949-964.
Kark, R., & van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-
regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500-
528.
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, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management
leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231-241.
Kim, S. E., & Rubianty, D. (2011). Perceived fairness of performance appraisals in the federal
government: Does it matter? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31(4), 329-348.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic
leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81(1), 36-51.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

155
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction:
Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology,
102(3), 741-756.
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.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Kranz, G. (2012). A broken engagement? Workforce Management, 91(9), 1-10.
Lam, C. S., & O’Higgins, E. R. (2012). Enhancing employee outcomes: The interrelated
influences of managers’ emotional intelligence and leadership style. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 33(2), 149-174.
Lawler, E. E., Benson, G. S., & McDermott, M. (2012). What makes performance appraisals
effective? Compensation & Benefits Review, 44(4), 191-200.
Leadership IQ. (2010). Are SMART goals dumb? Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.leadershipiq.com/materials/LeadershipIQ-AreSmartGoalsDumb.pdf
Lee, G., & Jimenez, B. S. (2011). Does performance management affect job turnover intention in
the federal government? The American Review of Public Administration, 42(2), 168-184.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Leventhal, G. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of
fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergne, M. S. Greenburg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.),
Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York, NY: Plenum.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

156
Liff, S. (2007). Managing government employees: How to motivate your people, deal with
difficult issues, and achieve tangible results. New York, NY: American Management
Association.
Light, P. C. (2008). A government ill executed: The depletion of the federal service. Public
Administration Review, 68, 413-420.
Lindell, M., & Rosenqvist, G. (1992). Is there a third management style? Finnish Journal of
Business Economics, 3, 171-198.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.
London, M., Mone, E. M., & Scott, J. C. (2004). Performance management and assessment:
Methods for improved rater accuracy and employee goal setting. Human Resource
Management, 43(4), 319-336.
Luthans, F., Zhu, W., & Avolio, B. J. (2005). The impact of efficacy on work attitudes across
cultures. Journal of World Business, 41(2), 121-132.
Madlock, P. E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and
employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 61-78.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
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.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

157
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not,
and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
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.
Meier, K. J., & Hicklin, A. (2008). Employee turnover and organizational performance: Testing
a hypothesis from classical public administration. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 18, 573-590.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as a systemic variable in predicting
the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(3), 277-292.
Moskowitz, M. (2013). The 100 best companies to work for. Fortune, 167(2), 85.
National Park Service. (2008). Learning and development report to the National Leadership
Council. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Retrieved March 25, 2013, from http://www.nps.gov/training/NPS_LDreportLR.pdf
National Park Service. (2011). A call to action: Preparing for a second century of stewardship
and engagement. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior. Retrieved from
http://www.nps.gov/calltoaction/PDF/Directors_Call_to_Action_Report.pdf
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

158
National Park Service. (2013). National Park Service overview. Washington, D.C.: National Park
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved from
http://www.nps.gov/news/upload/NPS-Overview-2012_updated-04-02-2013.pdf
National Park System Advisory Board. (2012). Developing a 21st-century leadership culture:
Status report to the National Park System Advisory Board. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/resources/upload/Task-10-NPS-Organizational-
Development-Report-2012-2.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. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Parker, L. (1994). The role of workplace support in facilitating self-sufficiency among single
mothers on welfare. Family Relations, 43, 168-173.
Peterson, T. O., & Arnn, R. B. (2005). Self-efficacy: The foundation of human performance.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(2), 5-18.
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.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Pincus, J. D. (2006). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human
Communication Research, 12(3), 395-419.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

159
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.
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., & Boomer, W. (1996). A meta-analysis of the relationships
between Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role
perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 380-399.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., & Kuskova, V. V. (2010). Dispelling misconceptions and
providing guidelines for leader reward and punishment behavior. Business Horizons, 53,
291-303.
Porter, H., Wrench, J. S., & Hoskinson, C. (2007). The influence of supervisor temperament on
subordinate job satisfaction and perceptions of supervisor sociocommunicative
orientation and approachability. Communication Quarterly, 55(1), 129-153.
Priya, S. (2011). A factor analysis of performance management system in a public sector
organization and its impact on job satisfaction among employees. Abhigydh, 29(3), 22-
31.
Pulakos, E. D., & O’Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is performance management broken? Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 4, 146-164.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

160
Rein, L. (2012, December 12). Best and worst places to work in Federal Government. The
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
Reinke, S. J. (2003). Does the form really matter? Leadership, trust, and acceptance of the
performance appraisal process. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23(1), 23-37.
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
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
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Matching the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource
Management, 43(4), 395-407.
Salacuse, J. W. (2007). Real leaders negotiate. University Business, 10, 2-3.
Schay, B. W., & Fisher, S. F. (2013). The challenge of making performance-based pay systems
work in the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 42(3), 359-384.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

161
Schyns, B. (2001). The relationship between employees’ self-monitoring and occupational self-
efficacy and transformational leadership. Current Research in Social Psychology, 7(3),
30-42.
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.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and impression.
Communication Education, 32, 323-329.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1981). Self-monitoring and relational competence. Paper
presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention, Anaheim, CA.
Stecher, B. M. (2010). Toward a culture of consequences: Performance-based accountability
systems. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Stecher, B. M., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons
for education from other sectors (Vol. 136). Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Stetz, T. A., Stetz, M. C., & Bliese, P. D. (2006). The importance of self-efficacy in the
moderating effects of social support on stressor-strain relationships. Work & Stress,
20(1), 49-59.
Stohl, C. (1984, May). Quality circles and the quality of communication. Paper presented at the
Speech Communication Association Convention, Chicago, IL.
Swiss, J. E. (2005). A framework for assessing incentives in results-based management. Public
Administration Review, 65(5), 592-602.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

162
Sy, T., Cote, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). Contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the
mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(2), 295-305.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 48, 227-236.
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.
Thoms, P., Dose, J. J., & Scott, K. S. (2002). Relationships between accountability, job
satisfaction, and trust. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(3), 307-323.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (2012). 2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
Retrieved from http://www.fedview.opm.gov/2012/EVSDATA/
Wang, X., & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational
leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1134-1144.
Westover, J. H., & Taylor, J. (2010). International differences in job satisfaction: The effects of
public service motivation, rewards and work relations. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 59(8), 811-828.
Wheeless, L. R., Wheeless, V. E., & Howard, R. D. (1984). The relationships of communication
with supervisor and decision-participation to employee job satisfaction. Communication
Quarterly, 32(3), 222-232.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

163
Wood Jr., J. A., & Winston, B. E. (2005). Toward a new understanding of leader accountability:
Defining a critical construct. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(3), 84-
94.
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.
Yee, R. W., Yeung, A. C., & Cheng, T. C. (2008). The impact of employee satisfaction on
quality and profitability in high-contact service industries. Journal of Operations
Management, 26(5), 651-668.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior:
Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 9(1), 15-32.
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.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

164
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY RESULTS FOR ANUENUE NATIONAL PARK

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

165

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

166

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

167

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

168

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

169

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

170

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

171

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

172

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

173

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

174

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

175

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

176

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

177

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

178

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

179
APPENDIX B
CAUSES ALIGNED TO GAP ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
Table B1
Assumed Efficacy Causes Aligned to Gap Analysis Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Buckingham and
Coffman (1999)
Measures the strength of workplace.
Attract, focus, & keep most talented
employees.

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

Canrinus et al.
(2012)
Feelings toward colleagues, perceived
support from colleagues and leadership, and
perceived competency in dealing with
workplace demands affects job satisfaction.

Caprara et al.
(2003)
Employees’ beliefs about their own ability
to perform their jobs, as well as employees’
perceptions of colleagues’ and other
employees’ ability to accomplish
organizational obligations, are the main
determinants of employees’ job
satisfaction.

Caprara et al.
(2006)
Employees who believe they have the
capability to perform, earn the trust of their
colleagues, and be innovative create
conditions in the workplace that promote
work satisfaction.

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

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

180
Table B1, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
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.
Employees’ 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.

Judge and Bono
(2001)
Employees’ generalized self-efficacy
(belief in their ability to perform and be
successful), self-esteem (value they place
on themselves as people), 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)
Employees’ belief about their capability to
complete tasks at work positively
influences job satisfaction.
Employees who experience high job stress
from poor working conditions; inadequate
preparation time; heavy workloads; and
overly demanding customers and
colleagues) have lower job satisfaction.
Experience and job-related stress affect
self-efficacy, which, in turn, affects job
satisfaction.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

181
Table B1, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Klassen et al.
(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 et al.
(2005)
General self-efficacy (employees’ 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 et al.
(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 one’s
own ability to accomplish a task on his or
her own).
Even individual team members with low
self-efficacy can experience high job
satisfaction when perceiving his or her
colleagues to be competent.

Zellars et al.
(2001)
Self-efficacy (an individual’s belief that he
or she is capable of successfully
accomplishing a task) positively predicts
job satisfaction and negatively predicts
exhaustion.
Perceived collective efficacy (an individual
member’s belief in his or her group’s
ability to successfully accomplish a task)
directly and positively predicts job
satisfaction and negatively predicts intent to
turnover.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

182
Table B2
Assumed Communication Causes Aligned to Gap Analysis Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Andrews and
Kacmar (2001)
Performance feedback
from supervisors/ leaders
is critical.
Clampitt and
Downs (1993)
Performance feedback
from supervisors/ leaders
is critical.
Hargie et al.
(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.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

183
Table B2, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Pettit et al.
(1997)
Supervisors need to
provide their employees
with appropriate and
accurate info.
Porter et al.
(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 et al.
(1996)
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.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

184
Table B2, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Pincus (2006) Supervisor
communication
(supervisor openness to
listen to employee
problems), communication
climate (response to
communication
environment), and
personal feedback (how
performance is judged).
Thomas et al.
(2009)
Quality of information
from supervisors: timely,
accurate and relevant
information increases
trust.

Wheeless et al.
(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

185
Table B3
Assumed Leadership Causes Aligned to Gap Analysis Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Bolman and
Deal (2008, p.
137)
Leaders who utilize a ‘human resource (HR)’
management approach maximize both human
capital and organizational productivity. HR
leaders show interest & compassion in their
employees’ well-being.

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

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

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

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

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

186
Table B3, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Madlock (2008) A supervisor with good communication
skills (motivating, active listening, sharing/
responding to information in a timely
manner, and communicating clearly at all
organizational levels) positively affects
employees’ feelings toward their jobs and
satisfaction with the perceived quality of
communication.

Northouse
(2012, 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 et al. (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

187
Table B4
Assumed Accountability Causes Aligned to Gap Analysis Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Breaux et al.
(2008); Ellickson
(2002); Kim
(2002); McKnight
et al. (2001)
Accountability coupled
with abusive leadership
behavior (verbal and
non-verbal hostility
towards employees by a
direct supervisor) is
negatively associated
with employee
satisfaction, whereas
when coupled with a
close, participative
relationship between
supervisor and
employee leads to
higher employee
satisfaction.
DeSantis and
Durst (1996)
The degree to which
employee talents are
utilized impacts
employee satisfaction.
Social relationship
with coworkers
impacts employee
satisfaction and
performance.

Durst and
DeSantis (1997);
Ellickson (2002)
Employee perception
of low pay impacts
low employee
satisfaction.
Employee perception of
adequate pay impacts
employee satisfaction.
Ellickson (2002);
Fernandez and
Moldogaziev
(2011)
Access to job-related
knowledge and skills
are associated with
employee satisfaction
and performance.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

188
Table B4, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Ellickson (2002);
Swiss (2005);
Yang & Kassekert
(2009)
Degree to which
promotions and rewards
are merit-based, rather
than favoritism or
politics impacts
employee satisfaction
and performance.
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
et al. (2001)
The degree of timely
and accurate
feedback about
performance impacts
employee satisfaction
and performance.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

189
Table B4, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Fernandez and
Moldogaziev
(2011)
Degree of flexibility in
granting employees
discretion to change
work processes impacts
employee satisfaction
and performance.
Harrison et al.
(2006); Westover
and Taylor (2010)
Employees who do
not identify with the
mission of the
organization or do
not feel their work is
important or valued
(also known as
organizational
commitment,
organizational
citizenship behavior,
and public service
motivation) have less
job satisfaction.

Thoms et al.
(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
Supervisors’ example
impact employee
satisfaction and
performance.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

190
APPENDIX C
2012 EVS SCORES FOR ANUENUE NATIONAL PARK (ANP) AND NPS
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item K M O NPS ANP
1 Employees are not given a real opportunity to
improve their skills in the organization.
X 59% 42%
2 Employees do not have enough information to do
their job well.
X 65% 61%
3 Employees do not feel encouraged to come up
with new and better ways of doing things.
X 59% 42%
4 Employee’s work does not give them a feeling of
personal accomplishment.
X 75% 82%
5 Employees do not like the kind of they work. X 87% 85%
6 Employees do not know what is expected of
them on the job.
X 75% 73%
7 When needed, employees are not willing to put in
the extra effort to get a job done.
X 97% 100%
8 Employees are not constantly looking for ways to
do their job better.
X 92% 97%
9 Employees do not have sufficient resources (for
example, people, materials, budget) to get their
job done.
X 31% 33%
10 Employees’ workload is unreasonable. X 43% 42%
11 Employees’ talents are not used well in the
workplace.
X 57% 52%
12 Employees do not know how their work relates to
the agency’s goals and priorities.
X 83% 79%
13 The work employees do is not important. X 92% 91%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

191
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item K M O NPS ANP
14 Physical conditions (e.g. noise level, temperature,
lighting cleanliness) do not allow employees to
perform their jobs well.
X 66% 64%
15 Employees’ performance appraisal is not a fair
reflection of their performance.
X 66% 56%
16 Employees’ are not held accountable for
achieving results.
X 80% 85%
17 Employees fear reprisal if they disclose a
suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation.
X 55% 53%
18 Employees’ training needs are not assessed. X 38% 19%
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% 58%
20 Employees’ coworkers do not cooperate to get
the job done.
X 70% 61%
21 Employees’ work unit is not able to recruit
people with the right skills.
X 40% 19%
22 Promotions in the work unit are not based on
merit.
X 32% 22%
23 In the work unit, steps are not taken to deal with
poor performer who cannot or will not improve.
X 28% 14%
24 In the work unit, differences in performance are
not recognized in a meaningful way.
X 31% 10%
25 Awards in the work unit do not depend on how
well employees perform their jobs.
X 43% 26%
27 The skill level in the work unit has not improved
in the past year.
X 50% 34%
28 Employees feel that the overall quality of work
done by their work unit is poor?
X 50% 88%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

192
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item K M O NPS ANP
29 The workforce does not have the job-relevant
knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish
organizational goals.
X 67% 74%
30 Employees do not have a feeling of personal
empowerment with respect to work processes.
X 41% 38%
31 Employees are not recognized for providing high
quality products and services
X 46% 33%
32 Creativity and innovation are not rewarded. X 36% 36%
33 Pay raises do not depend on how well employees
perform their jobs.
X 15% 10%
34 Policies and programs do not promote diversity in
the workplace (e.g. Recruiting minorities and
women, training in awareness of diversity issues,
mentoring).
X 51% 47%
35 Employees are not protected from health and
safety hazards on the job.
X 75% 88%
36 The organization has not prepared employees for
potential security threats.
X 55% 49%
37 Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and
coercion for partisan political purposes are
tolerated.
X 50% 58%
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% 56%
39 My agency is not successful at accomplishing its
mission.
X 70% 73%
40 I do not recommend my organization as a good
place to work.
X 67% 70%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

193
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item K M O NPS ANP
41 I do not believe the results of this survey will be
used to make my agency a better place to work.
X 37% 45%
42 Employee’s supervisor does not support their
need to balance work and other life issues.
X 77% 73%
43 Employee’s supervisor/team leader does not
provide them with opportunities to demonstrate
their leadership skills.
X 67% 67%
44 Discussions with employee’s supervisor/team
leader about their performance are not
worthwhile.
X 59% 52%
45 Employees’ supervisor/team leader is not
committed to a workplace representative of all
segments of society.
X 64% 52%
46 Employees’ supervisor/team leader does not
provide them with constructive suggestions to
improve their job performance.
X 56% 55%
47 Supervisors/team leaders in employee’s work unit
do not support employee development.
X 61% 42%
48 Employee’s supervisor/team leader does not
listen to what they have to say.
X 74% 64%
49 Employee’s supervisor/team leader does not treat
them with respect.
X 77% 67%
50 In the last six months, employee’s
supervisor/team leader has not talked with them
about their performance.
X 77% 85%
51 Employees do not have trust and confidence in
their supervisor.
X 64% 58%
52 Overall, employees feel that their immediate
supervisor/team leader is not doing a good job.
X 65% 64%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

194
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item K M O NPS ANP
53 In the employee’s organization, leaders do not
generate high levels of motivation and
commitment in the workplace.
X 38% 34%
54 Employee’s organization’s leaders do not
maintain high standards of honesty and integrity.
X 52% 48%
55 Managers/supervisors/team leaders do not work
well with employees of different backgrounds.
X 58% 42%
56 Managers do not communicate the goals and
priorities of the organization.
X 53% 53%
57 Managers do not review and evaluate the
organization’s progress toward meeting its goals
and objectives.
X 50% 53%
58 Managers do not promote communication among
different work units (for example, about projects,
goals, needed resources).
X 46% 47%
59 Managers do not support collaboration across
work units to accomplish work objectives.
X 51% 44%
60 Employees do not feel that the manager directly
above their immediate supervisor/team leader is
doing a good job.
X 53% 45%
61 Employees do not have a high level of respect for
their organizations’ senior leaders.
X 48% 58%
62 Senior leaders do not demonstrate support for
Work/Life programs.
X 48% 46%
63 Employees are not satisfied with their
involvement in decisions that affect their work.
X 50% 39%
64 Employees are not satisfied with the information
they receive from management on what’s going
on in their organization.
X 44% 32%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

195
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item K M O NPS ANP
65 Employees are not satisfied with the recognition
they receive for doing a good job.
X 46% 39%
66 Employees are not satisfied with the policies and
practices of their senior leaders.
X 38% 42%
67 Employees are not satisfied with their
opportunity to get a better job in their
organization.
X 32% 23%
68 Employees are not satisfied with the training they
receive for their present job.
X 44% 32%
69 Considering everything, employees are not
satisfied with their job.
X 66% 70%
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% 55%

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

196
APPENDIX D
ANP EVS QUESTIONS THAT SCORED LOWER THAN 60% (LOWEST TO HIGHEST)
EVS
Question
No. Assumed Cause
ANP
EVS
Percent
Positive
Score
K/
M/
O
24 In the work unit, differences in performance are not recognized
in a meaningful way.
10% O
33 Pay raises do not depend on how well employees perform their
jobs.
10% O
23 In the work unit, steps are not taken to deal with poor performer
who cannot or will not improve.
14% O
18 Employees’ training needs are not assessed. 19% O
21 Employees’ work unit is not able to recruit people with the
right skills.
19% O
22 Promotions in the work unit are not based on merit. 22% O
67 Employees are not satisfied with their opportunity to get a
better job in their organization.
23% M
25 Awards in the work unit do not depend on how well employees
perform their jobs.
26% O
64 Employees are not satisfied with the information they receive
from management on what’s going on in their organization.
32% K
68 Employees are not satisfied with the training they receive for
their present job.
32% K
9 Employees do not have sufficient resources (for example,
people, materials, budget) to get their jobs done.
33% O
31 Employees are not recognized for providing high quality
products and services
33% O
27 The skill level in the work unit has not improved in the past
year.
34% O
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

197
EVS
Question
No. Assumed Cause
ANP
EVS
Percent
Positive
Score
K/
M/
O
53 In the employee’s organization, leaders do not generate high
levels of motivation and commitment in the workplace.
34% O
32 Creativity and innovation are not rewarded. 36% O
30 Employees do not have a feeling of personal empowerment
with respect to work processes.
38% M
63 Employees are not satisfied with their involvement in decisions
that affect their work.
39% M
65 Employees are not satisfied with the recognition they receive
for doing a good job.
39% M
1 Employees are not given a real opportunity to improve their
skills in the organization.
42% O
3 Employees do not feel encouraged to come up with new and
better ways of doing things.
42% O
10 Employees’ workload is unreasonable. 42% O
47 Supervisors/team leaders in employee’s work unit do not
support employee development.
42% O
55 Managers/supervisors/team leaders do not work well with
employees of different backgrounds.
42% O
66 Employees are not satisfied with the policies and practices of
their senior leaders.
42% O
59 Managers do not support collaboration across work units to
accomplish work objectives.
44% O
41 I do not believe the results of this survey will be used to make
my agency a better place to work.
45% O
60 Employees do not feel that the manager directly above their
immediate supervisor/team leader is doing a good job.
45% M
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

198
EVS
Question
No. Assumed Cause
ANP
EVS
Percent
Positive
Score
K/
M/
O
62 Senior leaders do not demonstrate support for Work/Life
programs.
46% O
34 Policies and programs do not promote diversity in the
workplace (e.g. Recruiting minorities and women, training in
awareness of diversity issues, mentoring).
47% O
58 Managers do not promote communication among different
work units (for example, about projects, goals, and needed
resources.)
47% O
54 Employee’s organization’s leaders do not maintain high
standards of honesty and integrity.
48% O
36 The organization has not prepared employees for potential
security threats.
49% O
11 Employees’ talents are not used well in the workplace. 52% O
44 Discussions with employee’s supervisor/team leader about their
performance are not worthwhile.
52% O
45 Employees’ supervisor/team leader is not committed to a
workplace representative of all segments of society.
52% O
17 Employees fear reprisal if they disclose a suspected violation of
any law, rule or regulation.
53% M
56 Managers do not communicate the goals and priorities of the
organization.
53% O
57 Managers do not review and evaluate the organization’s
progress toward meeting its goals and objectives.
53% O
46 Employees’ supervisor/team leader does not provide them with
constructive suggestions to improve their job performance.
55% O
71 Considering everything, employees are not satisfied with their
organization.
55% M
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

199
EVS
Question
No. Assumed Cause
ANP
EVS
Percent
Positive
Score
K/
M/
O
15 Employees’ performance appraisal is not a fair reflection of
their performance.
56% O
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.
56% O
19 In employees’ most recent performance appraisal, employees
did not understood what they had to do to be rated at different
performance levels.
58% K
37 Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and coercion for partisan
political purposes are tolerated.
58% O
51 Employees do not have trust and confidence in their supervisor. 58% O
61 Employees do not have a high level of respect for their
organization’s senior leaders.
58% M

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

200
APPENDIX E
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Name of Observer:
Date:
Time:
Location:
Study Name:
Brief Summary of Observation:

Physical Space

Define the physical space (geographical, temporal, physical, political):
Utility: What is the purpose of the event/setting?
Participant reactions to physical setting:
Other:

People/Participants

Who are the participants being observed? How many participated?
Demographic information (racial, ethnic, gender, class):
What are the roles of those being observed? How do you know?
What was each of the specific participants doing (group interaction, individual actions, passive
participants, active participants)?

Purpose of Events/Observations

Why is the event taking place? Are there any political contexts to be discussed?
Who was invited to event? Who was not?
Was there any discussion of NPS policy? Why?
What are the positions of the various participants involved (power dynamics, roles)
What is being discussed?

Observer Role

What am I doing? What is my role throughout the observation?
Describe some of my interactions with other participants throughout the observation.
How did my interaction/presence affect the observation participants?

Sequence of Events

Beginning
Middle
End

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

201
Pictures of Observation Room

Picture 1:
Picture 2:
Picture 3:
Picture 4:

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

202
APPENDIX F
EMPLOYEE ACTION PLAN NOTES

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

203

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

204

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

205

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

206

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

207

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

208

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

209
APPENDIX G
DATA COLLECTION METHOD: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL AND QUESTIONS
Introduction
 Thank you for meeting with me. I’m a doctoral student at USC and I’m here to help the park
understand more about its EVS findings. It appears that the NPS as a whole continues to
score in the bottom quarter of approximately 250 federal organizations.
 I’m interested from your experience in this park, why you think that might be. I hope to be
able to use what I learn from today in helping the park refine its action plan.
 Anything you tell me will remain anonymous. I will not attribute anything you say to you
either by name or job category.
 You may choose to skip any question and you may end this interview at any time.
 The total time should take no longer than 30 minutes.
 What questions do you have for me before we begin?”
 Do you mind if I record our interview? I will destroy the recording once I’ve finished my
report. NO, DO NOT RECORD YES, OK TO RECORD

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

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: 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

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

PDF

Achieving high levels of employee engagement: A promising practice study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Increasing institutional retention: a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Pang, Bryan Daniel Kwai Sun (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/29/2014

Defense Date 02/27/2014

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

Tag accountability,and trust,Communication,efficacy,employee satisfaction,Fairness,gap analysis,Knowledge,leadership,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,organization,organizational effectiveness,organizational justice,participatory decision-making,program evaluation,respect,Training

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email bryandmei808@gmail.com,bryanpan@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-467675

Unique identifier UC11287001

Identifier etd-PangBryanD-2864.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-467675 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PangBryanD-2864.pdf

Dmrecord 467675

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Pang, Bryan Daniel Kwai Sun

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