University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK 1

GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK:
ROUND HILL PARK

by

Kathryn M. Craven

_________________________________________________________________________

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

August 2014

Copyright 2014 Kathryn M. Craven

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

2
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my father and my husband, the two most important and
influential people in my life. My father, who instilled in me the drive and confidence to always
take advantage of all life has to offer and my husband, who consistently supports my life
endeavors with unbelievable enthusiasm and just the right amount of tough love to keep me
strong and focused. All my love to you both, this daunting task would never have been possible
without the two of you.
I also dedicate this dissertation to Tiswell who silently tolerated my need to read three
years of assignments aloud and is now officially the smartest Coton de Tulear in Hawaii.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
List of Tables 4
List of Figures 5
Abstract 6
Chapter 1: Introduction 7
Chapter 2: Literature Review 14
Chapter 3: Methodology 27
Chapter 4: Results and Findings 50
Chapter 5: Solutions 76
Chapter 6: Evaluation/Recommendation 94
References 104
Appendices 115
Appendix A: Employee Satisfaction Variables Mapped to Clark and Estes’s 115
Gap Analysis
Appendix B: Summarized Results of the 2012 National Park Service Federal 124
Employee Viewpoint Survey for Round Hill Park
Appendix C: Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) Mapped to Clark and Estes’s 143
Gap Analysis Framework
Appendix D: Employee Satisfaction Interview Questions 148
Appendix E: Observation Protocol 149
Appendix F: Round Hill Employee Action Plans 151

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Validated Causes of Low Employee Satisfaction at Round Hill Park 77
Table 2. Summary of Knowledge Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of 89
the Solutions
Table 3. Summary of Motivation Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the 90
Solutions
Table 4. Summary of Organization Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the 90
Solutions
Table 5. Summary of Organization’s Main, Short-Term, Cascading, and Performance 91
Goals
Table A1. Communication Mapped to Clark and Estes’s Gap Analysis 115
Table A2. Efficacy Mapped to Clark and Estes’s Gap Analysis 117
Table A3. Accountability Mapped to Clark and Estes’s Gap Analysis 119
Table A4. Leadership Literature Aligned to Clark and Estes’s Gap Analysis 121
Table A5. Assumed Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Causes of Employee 123
Satisfaction to be Validated
Table C1. Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization EVS Items Mapped to Clark and 143
Estes’s Gap Analysis Framework (Percentage of Round Hill Park Positive
Responses)

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Positive response % for EVS knowledge items 38
Figure 2. Positive response % for EVS motivation items 40
Figure 3. Positive response % for EVS organization items 44

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

6
ABSTRACT
This study explored the possible causes of low employee satisfaction ratings at a particular
national park, Round Hill Park, and recommended solutions for causes validated through
analyzing triangulated (observations, document analysis (employee action plans), and
interviews) data. The purpose of this study was to determine the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational causes of and solutions for low employee satisfaction ratings at Round Hill Park
using the gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) stated that in order
to close a performance gap and achieve a performance goal, the causes of the gap needed to be
identified to determine the type of performance improvement program required. Specifically,
they stated that gaps typically occur in at least one of the following three areas: people’s
knowledge, their motivation to achieve goals, and organizational barriers. The data collected
using observations made of employees during guided discussion sessions, using employees’
action plans, and using phone interviews conducted with employees indicated that the validated
knowledge, motivation, and organization causes for low employee satisfaction at Round Hill
Park were that employees were not satisfied with communication practices within the
organization, with employee empowerment policies, or with the management of required
resources for job accomplishment. Solutions such as creating a cross-divisional employee
working group dedicated to increasing the amount and type of reliable information and
communication available to employees, to advocating for increased employee empowerment,
and to ensuring leadership was aware of required resources for employees to do their jobs were
suggested for the NPS to begin closing the gap between current employee satisfaction ratings and
NPS desired ratings.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

7
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
According to Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patton (2010), work is one of the most
important and time-consuming things adults do and organizational researchers have spent over a
quarter of a century studying employee job satisfaction and its effect on an organization’s
mission accomplishment. For example, Buckingham and Coffman (1999) argue that the higher
an employee’s job satisfaction level, the higher an organization’s productivity, profitability,
retention, and customer satisfaction rates (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). Edgar and Geare
(2005) also found that higher employee satisfaction in the workplace translates into higher
quality work performance and, in turn, increases organizations’ mission success. Yee, Yeung,
and Cheng (2008) similarly discovered that satisfied employees provide higher quality customer
service that increases customer satisfaction and eventually leads to increased productivity and
financial gains for an organization.
While these studies have resulted in a myriad of definitions of job satisfaction, it is Locke
(1976) who provides the definition that is used most by researchers. Specifically, Locke (1976)
defines job satisfaction as a positive emotional state that results from one’s job experiences.
These experiences can include anything encountered in the working environment including
leadership style, communication, accountability, efficacy, pay, hours worked, and promotion
opportunities (Pincus, 2006). The Federal Government takes employee satisfaction very
seriously and surveys its employees annually to determine their satisfaction levels with their
working environment and to highlight areas needing improvement. In fact, the most recent
survey conducted by the Federal Government revealed low satisfaction levels for National Park
Service (NPS) employees stationed at Round Park Hill (a pseudonym for a real national park that
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

8
will be used throughout this document) and the focus of this study is to explore possible causes
(U.S. Office of Personnel Management [USOPM], 2012b).
Background of the Problem
On August 25, 1916, Woodrow Wilson established the NPS to preserve and protect
natural and historical places for visitor enjoyment (National Park Service [NPS], 2012). The
NPS is the largest bureau within the Department of Interior and employs nearly 26,000 people
that include approximately 17,000 permanent, full-time and 9,000 temporary employees (NPS,
2012). The NPS is divided into seven regions (Alaska, Intermountain, Midwest, National
Capital, Northeast, Pacific West, and Southeast) and manages 401 national parks; 49 national
heritage areas; 84,000,000 acres of land; 4,502,644 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; and
121,603,193 objects in museum collections (NPS, 2012). The NPS also manages 43,890,527
acres of wilderness, which is approximately 40% of the total wilderness acreage in the United
States (NPS, 2012). With such an immense scope of responsibility, it is understandable that the
NPS would have a keen interest in having employees who are satisfied with their working
environments and are motivated and committed to accomplishing the goals and mission of its
vast organization.
To that end, the 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 (USOPM, 2012a). The survey consists of 84 items that measure employees’
perceptions of the NPS work environment using eight categories that include personal work
experiences, work unit, agency, supervisor/team leader, leadership, satisfaction, work/life, and
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

9
demographics and a Likert-type scale is used that ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree
(USOPM, 2012a). Parks, regional offices, Washington office directorates, the Denver Service
Center, U.S. Park Police, and the Harper’s Ferry Center all receive copies of survey reports for
their respective locations if they have ten or more survey respondents.
Results of the 2012 EVS indicate 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, 2012a). Interestingly, among the lowest scores from the
2012 EVS was the employees’ ratings of leaders’ generation of high levels of motivation and
commitment. Similarly, the results of the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government
Survey (USOPM, 2012a) indicate the same low scores for leadership, and rank the NPS at 166
out of 292 agencies for which to work. The problem for the NPS is to find a way to determine
the cause of low employee satisfaction at each park and devise a plan to improve it. Based on
the aforementioned research that found a relationship among leadership, employee satisfaction,
and organizational success, it is critical to the organizational health of the NPS to focus on
strengthening their employees’ satisfaction ratings.
As a result of the survey indications of low employee job satisfaction, the NPS is highly
motivated to improve employee satisfaction to minimize current or future impact on the
organization’s mission (USOPM, 2012a). The NPS plans to address low employee satisfaction
ratings by facilitating exceptional leadership, improving management practices, and
strengthening employee commitment through focused discussion sessions that include
customized assessments tailored to address effective strategies for communication, effective
leadership, and effective career development (USOPM, 2012c).
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

10
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine the reasons for employees’ low job
satisfaction ratings at one park in particular, Round Hill Park. One method of determining the
reasons was to focus on and explore the gap between current levels of employee job satisfaction
and NPS target levels of satisfaction using Clark and Estes’s (2008) Gap Analysis process.
Specifically, Clark and Estes’s (2008) Gap Analysis process analyzes the gap between current
levels of behavior and desired levels. To close a performance gap and achieve a performance
goal, Clark and Estes (2008) state that the cause of the gap (knowledge, motivation, and/or
organizational barriers) needs to be identified to determine the type of performance improvement
program required. Using Clark and Estes’s (2008) model, NPS and Round Hill Park leadership
focused on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational situations as possible causes of the
gap between current employee satisfaction and desired levels, and identified a course of action to
improve them. It is important to note that while 100% employee satisfaction is probably not
realistic, the mechanisms to achieve this ideal goal should be in place.
Study Questions
Using the framework of Clark and Estes’s (2008) Gap Analysis and Anderson et al.’s
(2001) taxonomy for learning, this study attempted to answer the following questions:
1. What are the perceived knowledge, motivation, and organization causes of the gap
between the current level of employee satisfaction at Round Hill Park and the NPS
desired level, or what are the perceived causes that prevent 100% employee
satisfaction?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

11
Implications
The current study was expected to support findings from previous research that focused
on factors that influence job satisfaction. For example, Pincus (2006) found positive correlations
between communication, job satisfaction, and organization performance while Darvish and
Rezaei (2011) found that there is a positive correlation between leadership, employee job
satisfaction, and organizational team commitment. Darvis and Rezaei (2011) also found that
employees’ efficacy in performing work tasks and employees’ behavior reflect their level of job
satisfaction that, in turn, directly impact organizational mission accomplishment.
Using the framework of Clark and Estes’s (2008) Gap Analysis and Anderson et al.’s
(2001) taxonomy for learning, possible causes could be identified for Round Hill employees’ low
satisfaction ratings and new and more effective ways of closing the gap between current job
satisfaction levels and desired levels could be discovered. Ultimately, the primary goal was to
help Round Hill Park improve employee job satisfaction and, in turn, maximize the potential of
the organization to continue to accomplish the goals and mission set forth by the NPS and the
Department of Interior.
Definition of Terms
Conceptual Knowledge. Interrelations among basic elements within a larger structure
enabling them to function together (Anderson et al., 2001).
Culture/Organizational Barriers. Organizational processes, procedures, inadequate
equipment, or materials that prevent doing whatever is necessary to achieve high employee
satisfaction (Anderson et al., 2001).
Employee Satisfaction. Extent to which employees are satisfied or dissatisfied with their
jobs (Durst & DeSantis, 1997).
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

12
EVS. Employee Viewpoint Survey.
Factual Knowledge. Basic elements leaders or employees must know to solve problems
(Anderson et al., 2001).
Leadership. Selecting, equipping, training, and influencing one or more follower(s) who
have diverse gifts, abilities, and skills and focuses the follower(s) to the organization’s mission
and objectives causing the follower(s) to willingly and enthusiastically expend spiritual,
emotional, and physical energy in a concerted coordinated effort to achieve the organizational
mission and objectives (Winston & Patterson, 2006).
Meta-Cognitive Knowledge. Awareness and knowledge of one’s own strengths and
weaknesses (Anderson et al., 2001).
Motivation. “The process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained”
(Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2009, p.4).
Procedural Knowledge. How to do something; criteria for using skills, techniques, and
methods; and inquiry methods (Anderson et al., 2001).
Overview of Study
The current study consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 introduces and provides background
information about the problem to be studied. Employee satisfaction is critical to an
organization’s success and the NPS is facing the challenge of determining the cause of, and the
solution for, low employee satisfaction ratings. The purpose of the study is to explore possible
causes and solutions for the low National Park Service employee satisfaction ratings at Round
Hill Park.
Chapter 2 contains a synthesis of the available literature to discuss what is known and not
known about causes of employee satisfaction levels and their effects on organizations.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

13
Unanswered questions about employee satisfaction are highlighted, problems in methodology
with past research on leadership and employee satisfaction are identified, and the significance of
past studies on employee satisfaction are linked to the current study.
Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the methodology of the study. Specifically,
this chapter includes the site and population studied, the sampling method used, the specific
instrument and framework utilized, a detailed description of the procedures and methods used to
conduct the study, and a description of the statistical techniques and programs used to analyze
the data.
Chapter 4 will describe the participating stakeholders and will present the data collected
at Round Hill Park that validate, or do not validate, the assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organization causes of low employee satisfaction discussed in Chapter 3. Chapter 5 will present
research-based solutions for the causes of Round Hill Park employees’ low satisfaction that were
validated the most, as well as an integrated action plan. Finally, Chapter 6 will conclude this
study with an evaluation plan to determine the success of the solutions presented in Chapter 5.
Additionally, Chapter 6 will include a review of the purpose of the study, synthesis of results,
strengths and weaknesses of the approach used in the study, recommendation implications,
limitations of the study, implications for future research, and a conclusion.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

14
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The current economic and political climate within the Federal Government has resulted in
a reduction in worker benefits, pay and hiring freezes, sequestration, and looming threats of
furloughs of its current employees. In such a stressful environment, leadership within each
government department is finding it more important than ever before to monitor their employees’
job satisfaction levels, since research shows that these levels have a direct impact on
organizational effectiveness (Lavigna, 2012). One government department currently
experiencing lower than desired employee satisfaction levels is the NPS. Results of the 2012
Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) indicate that employees at one park in particular, Round Hill
Park, are reporting lower than desired job satisfaction levels (USOPM, 2012c) and have been
identified by the National Park Service to receive a focused discussion session to help the
employees develop a course of action to improve the conditions that are responsible for low
employee satisfaction levels. The remainder of this chapter will provide a synthesis of the
literature that focuses on factors that affect employee satisfaction and a review of the main points
discussed in Chapter 2.
Literature Review
In Chapter 1, the discussion of employee satisfaction primarily focused on how this
measure can impact organizations; however, the discussion in Chapter 2 will focus on factors
that researchers have found influence employee satisfaction. Specifically, the following
literature review will focus on studies that identify certain behaviors that can improve or
decrease employee satisfaction. These behaviors tend to fall into one of four evidence-based
categories: communication (Pincus, 2006), efficacy (Luthans, Zhu, & Avolio, 2005),
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

15
accountability (Fernandez, 2008), or leadership (Madlock, 2008). When exploring possible
causes of employee satisfaction, much of the performance gap between the current satisfaction
levels and desired levels can be explained by some failure in one or more of these four areas due
to a knowledge, motivation, or organizational issue (Clark & Estes, 2008). Appendix A maps
the four categories discussed in the literature to Clark and Estes’s (2008) knowledge, motivation,
and organizational causes for the satisfaction gap. Ultimately, the current study will use Clark
and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis process to explore possible knowledge, motivational, or
organizational causes for Round Hill Park’s low employee satisfaction in each of these four
categories.
Communication
In recent years, researchers have found positive correlations between communication and
job satisfaction (Pincus, 2006). Many researchers argue that communication in the workplace is
a combination of factors and describe it as being multidimensional. For example, Pincus (2006)
argues that communication in the workplace is a multi-dimensional construct and can be
categorized into three dimensions (informational, informational/relational, and relational) that
have positive correlations to job satisfaction. That is, employee satisfaction is impacted by the
flow of information within an organization and how it is provided to employees; by the
communication styles of supervisors, the organization’s communication climate, and employees’
personal feedback; and by employees’ communication satisfaction with other members of the
organization (Pincus, 2006). To that end, Johlke and Duhan (2000) and Hargie, Tourish and
Wilson (2002) found that face-to-face communication between supervisors and employees builds
trust, increases information (knowledge) flow, and positively influences employee satisfaction.
While Porter, Wrench, and Hoskinson (2007) agree that the quality of information from
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

16
supervisors to employees (timeliness, accuracy, and relevancy) and building a trusting
relationship is important to establishing and maintaining employee satisfaction, they also argue
that the supervisor’s personality (extrovert/introvert) and approachability and the extent to which
they encourage employees to feel comfortable asking them for guidance or feedback is equally
important. If employees feel uncomfortable communicating with their supervisors and cannot
ask for guidance or feedback, their motivation to perform their duties as well as their job
satisfaction levels could be negatively affected.
The aforementioned findings support earlier research that found that communication in
the workplace includes many aspects of communication that occur within an organization (Crino
& White, 1981); that communication satisfaction includes the amount of information employees’
receive from all sources in the workplace (Putti, Aryee, & Phua, 1990); and that communication
satisfaction includes the extent to which employees’ communication with superiors and
coworkers can satisfy their needs for inclusion and pleasure (Anderson & Martin, 1995). Like
Anderson and Martin (1995), Johlke and Duhan (2000) and Kim (2002) suggest that leaders’
communication styles that include soliciting and listening to employees’ suggestions and taking a
participative approach to management by allowing employees to actively participate in
information processing, decision making, and problem solving decreases the likelihood of
organizational barriers to employee satisfaction.
With that said, recent research indicates that different people respond differently to
communication styles and cautions leaders to explore all options when determining the most
effective method of communication for their specific work environment. For example, Goris
(2007) found that employees’ satisfaction with communication in the workplace was a strong
predictor for both employee performance and satisfaction. However, Goris (2007) warns that
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

17
knowing when, how, and with whom to communicate is a strategic managerial decision that can
help managers as they try to influence employees’ performance and satisfaction, but, again, each
employee is very different and managers should not assume that one style of communication will
work with all employees.
Similarly, and to further demonstrate the relationship between a supervisor’s
communication style and employee satisfaction, Fix and Sias (2006) examined the relationship
between employees’ perceptions of their supervisors’ use of person-centered communication
(PCC) and their job satisfaction. PCC addresses relationships between individuals of unequal
status (supervisor/employee) and is defined as the extent to which one’s communicative
messages consider the perspectives of others and adapt to those differences (Fix & Sias, 2006).
This harkens back to Buckingham and Coffman’s (1999) concept of how good managers should
treat their employees differently for the simple reason that they are different. Fix and Sias
(2006) found significant positive relationships between PCC and employee job satisfaction. That
is, supervisors who use PCC demonstrate genuine concern for their employees, which, in turn,
enhances both the quality of their working relationships and employee satisfaction. In Round
Hill Park’s low job satisfaction work environment, supervisors might consider focusing on
developing a person-centered leadership style to improve communication with their employees
and ultimately improve employee satisfaction.
Efficacy
Research conducted on the impact of efficacy (beliefs that allow individuals to
accomplish tasks) on employee satisfaction has found a significant relationship between the two
(Bandura, 1986). That is, self-efficacy is positively related to job satisfaction (Bandura, 1997;

Judge & Bono, 2001). Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, and Steca (2003) studied the
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

18
relationship between the beliefs teachers (who, like NPS employees, are public sector
employees) have about their own capacity to fulfill their job requirements and how those beliefs
impact their job satisfaction. The results of their study indicated that a main determinant of
teachers’ job satisfaction was their self-efficacy beliefs. In a later study, Caprara, Barbaranelli,
Steca, and Malone (2006) found that not only did teachers’ self-efficacy impact their job
satisfaction, but it also contributed significantly to their students’ academic achievement. They
further suggested that teachers with high self-efficacy beliefs were more likely to create learning
environments conducive to student achievement (Caprara et al., 2006). These researchers
highlighted the importance of focusing any interventions to improve an organization’s employee
satisfaction at both the leadership and employee levels.
Klassen, Usher, and Bong (2010) took their study of efficacy and job satisfaction one step
further and included a study of these two constructs across cultural settings (Canada, South
Korea, and the U.S.). Their findings indicated that certain public sector employees’ (in this case,
teachers’) efficacy was positively related to job satisfaction across settings. They also found that
teachers’ collective beliefs were more strongly associated with job satisfaction for Korean
teachers (who possess stronger collectivist values and enjoy greater job satisfaction than do
workers lower in collectivist values). Interestingly, unlike Klassen and Chiu (2010), Klassen,
Usher, and Bong (2010) found that job stress was not significantly associated with job
satisfaction across different cultural settings. The results from this study provide evidence that
culture (including culture of the organization) should not be ruled out when trying to understand
Round Hill Park employee satisfaction and underlines the importance of adding the concept of
motivation as a source of individual job satisfaction. Again, motivation is one of the potential
causes being explored for Round Hill employees’ current low satisfaction levels.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

19
In an earlier study, Luthans, Zhu, and Avolio (2005) also looked at the impact of efficacy
on work attitudes across cultures and found that efficacy is significantly and positively related to
job satisfaction in the U.S., but was not significantly and positively related in the Southeast Asia
sample (Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand); self-efficacy was positively related to
organizational commitment and negatively related to turnover intentions; but self-efficacy had no
relationship with any of the demographic or contextual variables in the Southeast Asia sample.
Luthans et al. (2005) argued that employees with higher levels of general self-efficacy have more
positive work-related attitudes and the higher the general self-efficacy, the greater their
organizational commitment and lower their intention to seek other employment. Their study also
found that general self-efficacy leads to job satisfaction and that job satisfaction leads to
commitment to the organization for employees in the U.S.
Further, Canrinus, Helms-Lorenz, Beijaard, Buitink, and Hofman (2012) argue that
studying the relationship between employees’ job satisfaction, self-efficacy, occupational
commitment, and level of motivation is also critical. Their research included newer and more
senior employees and found that the extent to which employees are satisfied with their
colleagues, the support they receive, and the extent to which they feel competent in dealing with
their leadership, influences their ratings of job satisfaction and occupational commitment. The
relationships Canrinus et al. (2012) found between the indicators of employees’ sense of their
professional identity (job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and occupational commitment) were similar
for new, experienced, and senior employees. Hence, the guided group discussions at Round Hill
Park included employees from all levels of the organization, not just from the lower levels.
Federici and Skaalvik’s (2012) also recognized that employee satisfaction was not just
important at lower levels. Their research targeted school principals and specifically focused on
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

20
observing how principal self-efficacy is related to job satisfaction, burnout, and motivation to
quit. Their study found that principal self-efficacy was positively related to job satisfaction and
motivation to quit and negatively related to burnout. The study highlights that even leadership’s
self-efficacy affects their job satisfaction as well as burnout and motivation to quit. Further,
Judge (1993) argues that job dissatisfaction would be more predictive of turnover if it were
considered in light of an individual’s predisposition to be satisfied with everyday life events.
Using data collected from a sample of nurses, Judge (1993) found that the more positive the
disposition of the individual, the stronger the relationship that was observed between job
dissatisfaction and turnover. Judge (1993) also found that individuals dissatisfied with their jobs,
but who had positive dispositions, were the individuals most likely to quit their jobs, and that job
satisfaction and voluntary turnover were more highly related for employees with positive
dispositions than for employees with negative dispositions. That is, happy people who are
unhappy at work, leave. These are the people that an organization hates losing the most because
their positive outlooks and pleasant personalities are invaluable to a team, particularly during
rough times such as those being experienced today in the Federal Government.
Gardner and Pierce (1998) probed a bit deeper in their study of efficacy and employee
satisfaction and explored the interrelationship between, and the role of, self-esteem and self-
efficacy within the organizational context. They found that organization-based self-esteem
(meaning, pride in organization, and connection to organizational mission) had positive effects
on employee job attitudes, behaviors, and self-esteem and was shaped by the individual’s
generalized feelings of efficacy. The study also found that organization-based self-esteem had a
positive effect on employee performance and satisfaction. Pairing good performance and
positive affect for these employees suggests that high organization-based self-esteem employees
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

21
are motivated to perform well and possess positive work-related attitudes, and are likely to
reinforce organization-based self-esteem and promote the realization that good performance is
associated with feeling good. In a later study, Judge and Bono (2001) conducted research that
found that self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability were
among the best dispositional predictors of job satisfaction and job performance.
Up to this point, the literature has focused on the effects of individual efficacy on
employee satisfaction; however, Nielsen, Yarker, Randall, and Munir (2009) researched the
mediating effects of team and self-efficacy. Their research found direct associations between
team and self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Specifically, teams that displayed high levels of
efficacy may have minimized the effects of individuals who were low in self-efficacy. That is,
those that displayed high levels of efficacy may have protected employees low in self-efficacy,
allowing them to experience high levels of job satisfaction because they perceived their
colleagues to be competent and felt assured by that (Nielsen et al., 2009).
Finally, Zellars, Hochwarter, Perrewe, Miles, and Kiewitz (2001) also looked beyond
individual self-efficacy and researched the interactive effects of role conflict and perceived
collective efficacy. Their study found that self-efficacy positively predicted job satisfaction, but
negatively predicted exhaustion and that perceived, collective efficacy directly and positively
predicted job satisfaction but negatively predicted intent to turnover.
Accountability
According to Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004), Americans are obsessed with
accountability. In fact, Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) argue that because of the country’s
rising national debt, declining stock-market, slowing of retail sales, increasing unemployment
numbers, falling housing sales and prices, and astronomical spending to sustain fighting multiple
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

22
wars in foreign lands, every significant policy initiative at the federal, state, or local level now
has accountability as an integral component. Similarly, in these times of economic crisis,
businesses and organizations are viewing accountability as key to their survival and as crucial for
their success. Accountability is often difficult to define and past researchers have defined it
differently. Goldberg and Morrison (2003) define accountability as the willingness and ability to
give an account of one’s actions, to fully describe and explain, and to accept the consequences of
one’s actions according to agreed upon commitments. Burke (2004, p. 1) refers to accountability
as the “chameleon word” and defines it as an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or
account for one’s actions. Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) define accountability as a
contractual relationship through which the director (possessing the power to reward, punish, or
replace the provider) seeks to ensure the provider of a good or service meets the director’s
objectives.
Accountability in the workplace requires all employees at every level of the organization
to know what is expected of them, and Fernandez and Moldogaziev (2011) states that timely and
accurate feedback about employees’ performance will positively impact their future
performance, their job satisfaction, and their ability to account for their actions in the workplace.
Ellickson and Logsdon (2002) further argue that employee performance and satisfaction is
directly related to employees’ access to job-related knowledge and skills. That is, the more
access employees’ have to information about their jobs and the skills required to perform their
jobs, the better they are able to successfully accomplish work tasks and the more satisfied they
are at work.
On the other hand, Harrison, Newman and Roth (2006) and Westover and Taylor (2010)
offer that it is the employees’ motivation that impacts their accountability in the workplace.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

23
Specifically, employees who do not feel their work is important to the organization or cannot
identify with the mission of the organization are less likely to feel compelled to perform their
duties to the expected standards and, in turn, are less likely to be satisfied with their jobs.
Swiss (2005) and Yang and Kassekert (2009) attribute workplace accountability to the
organization itself. For example, an organization’s innovative culture, performance expectations,
and merit-based awards and promotions policies positively impact employee satisfaction and,
thus, employee accountability. While accountability is difficult to define, Yang and Kassekert
(2009) argue that the fundamental components of accountability include leaders establishing
clear agreements and writing them down, employees knowing and understanding exactly what is
expected of them, and all members of an organization owning the results, studying the results,
and learning from them. These accountability components have been shown to increase
employees’ trust in their leadership and their work organizations and, in turn, improve employee
satisfaction (Yang & Kassekert, 2009). As a result, the focused discussion session scheduled for
Round Hill Park included a focus on leaders’ establishing clear and written goals, on employees’
understanding of how they fit into those goals, and on correcting any knowledge, motivational,
or organization causes for any issues discovered with the organization’s accountability system
before implementing solutions.
Leadership
Leadership means different things to different people. For example, Howell and Costley
(2006) define leadership as a process that involves developing organizations to be more effective
while Kotter (1990) suggests that leadership not only involves establishing a vision for an
organization, but also includes motivating employees to work toward accomplishing that vision.
But, while the definition of leadership might differ among researchers, most agree that leadership
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

24
matters when discussing employee job satisfaction (Fernandez, 2008). That is, leadership studies
focusing on the link between leadership and employee job satisfaction have found that a leader’s
behavior has critical implications for employees’ job satisfaction (Fernandez, 2008; Madlock,
2008; Sy, Cote, & Saavedra, 2005). Specifically, Fernandez (2008) found that leaders who show
genuine concern for subordinates, encourage creativity and innovation, and who improve
cooperation and communication among employees within the work environment make
subordinates feel more committed to their work and organization, which increases work
performance. Similarly, Madlock (2008) found a strong relationship between supervisors’
communicator competence and task/relational leadership styles and employee job satisfaction
with the strongest relationships found between supervisors’ communication competence and both
employee job and communication satisfaction.
Sy, Cote, and Saavedra (2005) have even gone so far as to suggest that leaders can
transfer their moods to employees and impact a group’s mood, effort, and coordination. That is,
individual employees experienced more positive moods and groups had a more positive affective
tone when leaders were in a positive mood (Sy, Cote, & Saavedra, 2005). Hence, effective
leadership and high employee job satisfaction can be of paramount importance to both public and
private organizations aspiring to achieve work environments conducive to quality performance
and successful mission accomplishment.
While leadership can certainly impact employees’ knowledge or affect an organizational
system as a whole, Northouse (2010) and Wang and Howell (2010) argue that leadership’s
greatest impact is on employees’ motivation. Specifically, Northouse (2010) states that leaders,
who create a clear vision, empower others, inspire trust, facilitate positive change, and act as
responsible role models positively impact employees’ motivation, performance, and job
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

25
satisfaction. Wang and Howell (2010) similarly demonstrate that leaders who advocate for
employees to continually improve their job performance and who empower subordinates to
develop their full potential positively affect employee performance and initiative.
With respect to government organizations, a recent study of military officers conducted
by Chang, Chien, Wu, and Yang (2011) not only supported Lavigna’s (2012) later finding that
leaders who emphasize that future vision and mission are inspirational, motivating, and who
encourage intellectual stimulation are the main drivers of employee satisfaction across the entire
government system, but also discovered that the higher a subordinate’s perception of a
supervisor, the more the subordinate will positively identify with the supervisor and, in turn,
experience higher levels of job satisfaction.
More specific to this study, Chang et al. (2011) found that the higher the subordinate’s
job satisfaction level, the more the subordinate will positively identify with the organization.
This strengthens Buckingham and Coffman’s (1999) argument that employees’ decisions to stay
with or leave an organization are directly related to their satisfaction with management. Clearly,
the literature indicates that communication, efficacy, accountability, and leadership (whether
individual or collective) have a direct impact on employee satisfaction and an organization
interested in improving employee satisfaction levels could benefit from focusing interventions, at
least to some degree, in this direction. To that end, the focused discussion session conducted at
Round Hill Park addressed these four variables and explored possible causes and solutions for
the problem of low employee satisfaction ratings at the park.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

26
Summary
Chapter 1 focused on the impact of employee satisfaction on organizations (productivity,
profitability, employee retention, and customer satisfaction) while Chapter 2 focused on factors
that affect employee satisfaction (communication, efficacy, accountability, and leadership).
Although many employee satisfaction studies have been conducted using participants
from outside the U.S., their findings have been consistent with studies conducted inside the U.S.
and are considered relevant to the current study. The studies included in this literature review
support the concept that communication, efficacy, accountability, and leadership affect employee
satisfaction for public and private sector employees; however, very little research has focused
specifically on NPS employee satisfaction and no known research has been conducted on the
employees at Round Hill Park.
Chapter 3 will begin by linking the possible causes discussed above to the conceptual
framework, which assumes that performance gaps, such as the employee satisfaction gap being
experienced at Round Hill Park, can be explained through gaps in knowledge, motivation, and
organization. Chapter 3 will also describe the actual study of employee satisfaction at Round Hill
Park in detail and will include the method used, the sample and population, instrumentation, data
collections, and data analysis.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

27
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study/Study Questions
The purpose of the current study was to assist leadership at Round Hill Park by studying
Round Hill employees’ perceived causes for the gap between the current level of employee
satisfaction and the desired level and by exploring plausible solutions to those perceived causes.
Chapter 3 will introduce the site that was studied (Round Hill Park) as well as the conceptual
framework and methodology used to inform the research. Specifically, this study focused on
what employees do and do not know, what employees value, what employees have confidence
doing, what employees are being prevented from doing, and how important they feel their work
is to the organization. Using the conceptual framework of Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis,
the following questions were studied:
1. What are the perceived knowledge, motivation, and organization causes of the gap
between the current level of employee satisfaction at Round Hill Park and the NPS
desired level or what are the perceived causes that prevent 100 percent employee
satisfaction?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
Site
In addition to parks and monuments, the NPS consists of many offices, centers,
programs, and divisions that provide support for individual sites and the NPS as a whole. Round
Hill Park falls in the category of a park with a mission to preserve the history and safeguard
historic remains located within the park boundaries, preserve the atmosphere of times past, and
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

28
ensure public access to appreciate the setting and enjoy the recreational use of the park lands.
Round Hill Park employees include a management team (superintendent and division chiefs),
human resources personnel, park rangers, park maintenance employees, interpreters, and animal
caretakers. The superintendent and division chiefs are primarily responsible for focusing on
ensuring policies, procedures, and other guidance applicable to park activities be efficiently
communicated and implemented throughout the organization. They are also responsible for
efficient management of all resources critical for proper management of park programs. If
Round Hill employees at all levels (management or subordinate employees) fail at their
responsibilities and do not implement policies and procedures effectively and properly, employee
morale and performance could be negatively impacted and, in turn, compromise the mission of
Round Hill Park and the NPS as a whole. Hence, it is understandable why the low employee
satisfaction levels indicated by the most recent EVS results for Round Hill Park concerned and
compelled NPS leadership to further investigate and address the survey areas with the lowest
ratings.
NPS parks, regional offices, Washington office directorates, the Denver Service Center,
U.S. Park Police, and the Harper’s Ferry Center all received copies of survey reports for their
respective locations if they had ten or more survey respondents. Using the resulting EVS data,
NPS leadership identified 24 low scoring parks (including Round Hill Park) to receive a two-
day, guided discussion session to explore possible knowledge, motivational, and organizational
causes of the employees’ low satisfaction ratings and identify plausible action plans to increase
satisfaction. To triangulate the data, permission was requested (and granted) for observation
during the guided discussion sessions, analysis of employee action plans created during the
discussion sessions, and follow-up phone interviews which focused on Round Hill Park
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

29
employees’ thoughts on the EVS ratings; thoughts on possible knowledge, motivation, and
organization causes; and solutions or action plans to address the causes.
Participating Stakeholders
Of the 133 permanent employees assigned to Round Hill Park in the Spring of 2012, 37
(28%) completed the 2012 EVS. All full- and part-time permanent employees (190) assigned to
Round Hill Park in October, 2013 were invited to participate in the two-day guided discussion
session. Seventy-four (39%) Round Hill Park employees participated in the discussion sessions,
including non-supervisor employees, supervisors, division chiefs, and the superintendent. Four
separate discussion sessions were conducted.
Two non-supervisor employee sessions (3.5 hours each) were conducted for a total of 54
(45 male, 9 female) participants, one supervisor session (3 hours) was conducted for 12 (9 males,
3 females) participants, and one management team session (2.5 hours) was conducted for 8
participants (1 male superintendent, 1 female, and 6 male division chiefs). Each session included
park and headquarters level employees representing maintenance, police, interpreters, program
managers, facility managers, human resource management, training and development, and
various other park and headquarters staff positions. Participants included employees who had
worked for the park service from just 10 days to over 30 years. Finally, of the 74 discussion
session participants who were invited to participate in the follow-up phone interview, 12 males
and 4 females (23%) volunteered and 6 males and 2 females (11%) actually interviewed.
Conceptual Framework
Working within the framework of Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis, this study
attempted to determine possible causes of low employee satisfaction at Round Hill Park and
possible solutions for closing the gap between current and desired employee satisfaction levels.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

30
Gap Analysis
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis process is a research-based system for human
performance improvement. The process includes establishing clear organizational, intermediate,
and performance level goals and quantifying the gaps between the current goals and desired
future performance levels. Focus groups, interviews, and survey strategies are used to look for
knowledge, motivational, or organizational causes for gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008); identify
solutions that have a high probability of closing the gap; develop an implementation and
evaluation plan; and repeat the analysis process as conditions change to detect additional
performance gaps.
The best goals are concrete (clear and easily understandable/measurable), challenging
(difficult, but obtainable), and current (short-term are more motivating than long-term goals) and
are identified at the organizational, intermediate, and performance levels of an organization
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The NPS has an organizational goal of being rated one of the best
government agencies to work for by 2016 (currently ranked 166 of 292 agencies) and is in the
process of executing an agency-wide focused discussion session that targets employees at all
organizational levels to identify and improve conditions responsible for current low employee
satisfaction levels. This NPS 2016 benchmark goal allows sufficient time for Round Hill Park
leadership to support this goal by identifying possible causes of their current low employee
satisfaction levels, implementing viable solutions at all levels to remedy those causes, and
aiming for a 20% increase in employee satisfaction by the target year. The measure that will be
used to determine achievement of both the NPS and Round Hill Park goals will be the number of
employees that indicate they are 20% more satisfied on the 2016 EVS than on the 2012 EVS.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

31
In this case study, Round Hill Park leaders, managers, and employees are a few of the
stakeholders in the achievement of the organizational goal that must be realized if the park is to
obtain the global goal of 20% increased employee satisfaction by 2016. Specifically, Round Hill
Park’s organizational goal is to determine the factors that research suggests lead to employee
satisfaction and implement a plan that incorporates these factors into the organization.
Causal Analysis
Clark and Estes (2008) state that in order to close a performance gap and achieve a
performance goal, the cause of the gap needs to be identified to determine the type of
performance improvement program required. Specifically, they state that gaps typically occur in
at least one of the following three areas: people’s knowledge, their motivation to achieve goals,
and organizational barriers.
Knowledge
According to Clark and Estes (2008), part of a gap analysis includes determining whether
or not people know how to achieve a performance goal. To that end, Anderson et al. (2001)
describe four categories of knowledge that lie along a continuum from concrete to abstract and
include: Factual Knowledge (basic elements people must know), Conceptual Knowledge
(interrelationships among basic elements), Procedural Knowledge (how to do something), and
Metacognitive Knowledge (awareness of one’s own cognition). It is possible that the method or
amount of information communication at Round Hill Park is not sufficient for its employees to
do their jobs adequately or to feel confident in their abilities to perform their jobs.
The literature review in Chapter 2 suggests that the assumed knowledge causes to be
validated include employees’ need for increased communication (information about their
organization and jobs that is timely, reliable, and delivered through the most effective methods);
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

32
increased accountability (information/feedback that is accurate and honest); and increased
exposure to leadership (professionally and casually) with good communication skills.
Motivation
Clark and Estes (2008) also state that most researchers agree that three motivational
indexes (active choice, persistence, and mental effort) can be potential problem areas in a work
environment. With that in mind, increasing motivation to act on identified goals, continuing to
pursue a goal in the face of distractions, and working smarter (utilizing knowledge and skill) to
develop innovative solutions to problems are actions that have the best chance of resulting in
goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008). For example, employees at Round Hill Park might not
see the benefit to them or the organization of attempting to do whatever is necessary to improve
employee job satisfaction or they might feel that bringing the issues affecting their job
satisfaction to the attention of their leadership will not change anything. Thus, to improve
employee satisfaction, it is important to address any detected reluctance or negativity in
employees’ motivation to work toward established goals.
The assumed motivation causes to be validated, as discovered in Chapter 2, include
employees’ need for increased self-efficacy (need more confidence in their ability to do their
jobs adequately, more moral support (actual or perceived) from colleagues and leadership in the
workplace, more recognition for good job performance, and more important roles in the
organization to boost confidence in value to the organization); increased accountability (need
more realistic timelines to complete tasks, more relief from excessive workloads when under-
staffed, more pay with increased work, and more ability to feel connected with organization’s
mission/goals); and increased exposure to leadership that encourages (empowers) employees to
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

33
develop their full potential (personally and professionally) and stresses group goal pursuit
(shared beliefs and values).
Organization
Clark and Estes (2008) also described the importance of focusing on an organization’s
culture, operational practices, and governing policies when evaluating causes of performance
gaps. Specifically, they discussed the importance of efficient and effective organizational
processes and resources that support the achievement of goals, the impact of organizational
culture on work processes, and the impact of popular organizational change processes. Round
Hill Park leaderships’ actions on employees’ concerns could be limited because of the
organization’s processes and procedures or inadequate equipment or materials. Further,
employees might not be able to elevate their issues and concerns to the appropriate level because
of the established processes and procedures within their organization.
The assumed organization causes to be validated from Chapter 2 include employees’
need for increased communication upward without fear of reprisal, more exposure to employees
in other departments within the organization, and increased opportunities to contribute
information to facilitate decision-making and problem-solving processes in the organization.
Additional organization causes to be validated include employees’ need for more reciprocal
accountability (employees and leadership are accountable to one another), more clearly stated
organization goals, and more flexibility within the organization and from leadership for
employees to adjust work processes to gain efficiencies. Table A1 in Appendix A presents a
summary of the causes from Chapter 2, reorganized according to the conceptual framework.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

34
Results of the EVS
Additionally, the EVS identified possible knowledge, motivation, and organization
causes of low employee satisfaction at Round Hill Park and, once assumed causes were
identified from the research literature (presented in Chapter 2), they were compared with the data
obtained from the park’s EVS results. Specifically, the OPM invited 1.6 million federal
employees from 82 federal agencies (including the NPS) to complete the 2012 EVS of which
over 687,000 or 46% participated. The EVS was a self-administered, web questionnaire
consisting of 98 items (14 demographic and 84 measurement items), was administered from
April through June of 2012, and measured employees’ perceptions of their work environments
using 14 categories of high performing organizations. These categories included best places to
work, employee skills/mission match, teamwork, pay and benefits, work/life balance,
training/development, diversity support, strategic management, effective leadership (leader,
supervisor, empowerment, fairness), performance-based rewards and advancement, and family
friendly culture. Three Likert-type response scales were used to record employees’ responses
and the response scales ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree, from very satisfied to
very dissatisfied, and very good to very poor. EVS results were reported in positive (strongly
agree, agree, very satisfied, satisfied, very good, good), neutral (neither agree nor disagree,
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, fair), and negative (disagree, strongly disagree, dissatisfied,
very dissatisfied, poor, very poor) response percentages for each survey item. The NPS
determined that ratings less than 60% were cause for concern and ratings in the 30% to 40%
range were considered low.
Results of the EVS for Round Hill Park may be found in Appendix B. It is important to
note that not all EVS ratings for Round Hill Park are low. In fact, employees indicate they are
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

35
very satisfied with employee skills and mission match (63%). That is, employees believe their
work is important (86%), employees like their work (78%), employees understand how their
work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities (68%), and employees feel that work gives them
a sense of personal accomplishment (79%). Round Hill employees also appear to be very
satisfied with the family friendly culture at work (61%). Specifically, employees are satisfied
with the employee assistance programs (80%) and health and wellness programs (70%). It
should be noted that only employees who actively participated in the employee assistance
programs and health and wellness programs were asked to respond to survey items in those
respective areas.
Unfortunately, as discussed earlier, the majority of Round Hill Park employee EVS
ratings are not as glowing in other areas of their work environment. For example, the survey
results indicate employees are very dissatisfied with their leadership in the empowerment
category (19%). More specifically, they do not have a feeling of personal empowerment with
respect to work processes (16%) and are not satisfied with their level of involvement in decisions
that affect their work (22%). They are also not satisfied with leadership in the leader category
(21%). That is, they do not feel that leaders in their organization generate high levels of
motivation and commitment in the workforce (11%), they do not believe their organization’s
leaders maintain high standards of honesty and integrity (17%), do not have a high level of
respect for their organization’s senior leaders (24%), and are not satisfied with the information
they receive from management on what’s going on in their organization (30%).
Round Hill Park employees are also not satisfied with performance-based rewards and
advancement (25%). For example, they are not satisfied that promotions in their work units are
based on merit (8%), not satisfied with their opportunities to get better jobs in their organization
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

36
(14%), not satisfied with the recognition they receive for doing good jobs (19%), not satisfied
that creativity and innovation are rewarded (30%), and not satisfied that employees are
recognized for providing high quality products and services (30%). They are not satisfied with
leadership in the fairness category (28%). Specifically, they do not believe that arbitrary action,
personal favoritism, and coercion for partisan political purposes are not tolerated (26%) and do
not believe they can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of
reprisal (29%). Employees are also dissatisfied with strategic management (28%). That is,
employees do not believe their work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills (14%), they
do not believe the skill level in their work unit has improved in the past year (16%), and do not
believe managers review and evaluate the organization’s progress toward meeting its goals and
objectives (29%). Other areas with low employee satisfaction ratings include training and
development (33%), work/life balance (37%), best places to work (38%), pay and benefits
(41%), support for diversity (43%), effective leadership-supervisor category (43%), and
teamwork (46%). In short, the lowest employee satisfaction ratings at Round Hill Park revolve
around leadership.
According to the conceptual framework, the issues raised in the literature and the EVS
results can be understood as signaling causes related to KMO. Specifically, the literature
suggests (see Tables A1-A4 in Appendix A) that assumed causes of low employee satisfaction
could be employees’ need for more knowledge (better or increased communication that is
accurate, honest, and without fear of reprisal and increased contact with leadership with good
communication skills), more motivation (increased self-efficacy, moral support, recognition, and
exposure to leaders that make employees feel empowered), and more organizational support
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

37
(more participation in decision-making and problem-solving processes, reciprocal accountability,
clearly defined goals, and flexibility to adjust work processes to gain efficiencies).
Similarly, the EVS data suggests (see Table C1 in Appendix C) that assumed causes of
low employee satisfaction at Round Hill Park could be caused by employees’ need for more
knowledge, motivation, and organizational support. For example, employees indicate that they
want more information and better communication about their jobs and organization, more
information about available training to improve performance, more feelings of empowerment
with work processes, more employee recognition for good performance, more involvement in
problem-solving and decision-making processes, more resources/materials to do their jobs, more
reasonable workloads, more merit-based promotions, more opportunities for advancement, more
training to improve work skills, more flexibility for creativity and innovation, more supervisor
feedback, and more focus on goal accomplishment. Interestingly, issues raised as possible
causes of low employee satisfaction by the literature and items Round Hill Park employees rated
lowest on the EVS reflect very similar knowledge, motivation, and organization causes for low
employee satisfaction.
Assumed Causes from Survey Results
Round Hill Park employees’ average rating on knowledge survey questions was 46.9%
positive. While this is considered a low rating by the NPS, the knowledge percentages were the
highest of the positive ratings among the knowledge, motivation, and organization causes of low
employee satisfaction at Round Hill Park. It should be noted that not all employee ratings were
in the low range. Specifically, employees were 67.6% positive that they know how their work
relates to the agency’s goals and priorities and were 64.9% positive that they know what is
expected of them on the job. The lower ratings, however, indicated that employees were 48.6%
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

38
positive that, in their most recent performance appraisal, they understood what they had to do to
be rated at different performance levels, were 45.9% positive that they have enough information
to do their job well, were 41.7% positive that their agency is successful at accomplishing its
mission, were 29.7% satisfied with the information they receive from management on what is
going on in their organization, and were 29.7% satisfied with the training they receive for their
present job (see Figure 1). Assumed knowledge causes to be validated are that employees need
more information about their organization and jobs (including training) that is timely, reliable,
and delivered through the most effective methods by the most reliable sources (accountability)
and increased information and feedback that is accurate and honest (accountability/leadership).

Figure 1. Positive response % for EVS knowledge items
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Positive Response
Percentages for
EVS Knowledge
Items
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

39
The knowledge category received Round Hill Park employees’ highest positive rating
percentages among the knowledge, motivation, and organization causes for low employee
satisfaction. Survey data indicate that the causes of low employee satisfaction at Round Hill
Park are that employees are not satisfied with the information they receive from management on
what is going on in their organization and not satisfied with the training they have received for
their current job.
Assumed Causes from Survey Results
In addition to rating the EVS knowledge items, Round Hill Park employees also
responded to motivation items on the survey. Specifically, Round Hill Park employees’ average
rating on EVS motivation survey items was 44.4% positive (lower than knowledge, but higher
than organizational causes of low employee satisfaction). As discussed earlier, the NPS
leadership determined that ratings less than 60% were cause for concern and ratings in the 30 to
40% range were considered low. Positive ratings were very high in some areas, but painfully
low in others. For example, Round Hill employees were 86.5% positive that, when needed, they
are willing to put in the extra effort to get a job done; were 86.5% positive that the work they do
is important; were 83.8% positive that they are constantly looking for ways to do their jobs
better; were 78.4% positive that they like the kind of work they do; were 51.4% positive that
their work gives them a feeling of personal accomplishment; were 45.9% positive that,
considering everything, they are satisfied with their jobs; were 40.5% positive that they were
satisfied with their pay; and were 40.5% positive that they would recommend their organization
as a good place to work (see Figure 2).

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

40

Figure 2. Positive response % for EVS motivation items

While several of the above EVS motivation items received very low positive ratings from
Round Hill Park employees, they rated the following items even lower. That is, employees were
only 29.4% positive that they can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule, or regulation
without fear of reprisal; were 27.8% positive that, considering everything, they are satisfied with
their organization; were 24.3% positive that, overall, the manager directly above their immediate
supervisor/team leader is doing a good job and that they have a high level of respect for their
organization’s senior leaders; were 21.6% positive that they are satisfied with their involvement
in decisions that affect their work; were 18.9% positive that they are satisfied with the
recognition they receive for doing a good job; were 16.2% positive that they have a feeling of
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Positive Response
Percentages for
EVS Motivation
Items
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

41
personal empowerment with respect to work processes; and were 13.5% positive that they are
satisfied with their opportunity to get a better job in their organization (see Figure 2). The
assumed motivation causes to be validated are that employees need more confidence in their
ability to do their jobs adequately, more moral support from colleagues and leadership in the
workplace, more recognition for good job performance, more important roles in the organization
(decision/problem solving) to boost confidence in value to the organization, more realistic
timelines to complete tasks, more relief from excessive workloads, more pay for increased work,
and more ability to feel connected with organization goals, more exposure to leadership that
encourages employees to develop their full potential (empower), encourage group goals pursuit
and shared beliefs and values.
Assumed Causes from Survey Results
Round Hill Park employees’ average rating on organization survey questions was 35%
positive, the lowest positive ratings among the knowledge, motivation, and organization
categories of possible causes of low employee satisfaction at Round Hill. As mentioned earlier,
NPS leaders consider ratings in the 30 percent range as low. Round Hill employees were 67.6%
positive that they are protected from health and safety hazards on the job and that their
supervisor/team leader treats them with respect; were 62.2% positive that their supervisor
supports their need to balance work and other life issues and that, in the last six months, their
supervisor/team leader has talked with them about their performance; were 56.8% positive
employees in their work unit share knowledge with each other; were 54.1% positive that they are
held accountable for achieving results and that the people they work with cooperate to get the job
done; were 52.8% positive that prohibited personnel practices (illegally discriminating for or
against any employee/applicant, obstructing a person’s right to compete for employment,
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

42
knowingly violating veterans’ preference requirements) are not tolerated; were 51.4% positive
that the workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish
organizational goals, that their performance appraisals are fair reflections of their performances,
that policies and programs promote diversity in the workplace (recruiting minorities and women,
training in awareness of diversity issues, mentoring), and that their supervisors/team leaders
listen to what they have to say; and were 50% positive that their supervisors/team leaders are
committed to a workforce representative of all segments of society.
While many of the above ratings fall into the acceptable category, the criteria established
by NPS leaders classifies most of Round Hill’s positive ratings as low. For example, employees
were 45.9% positive that their supervisors/leaders provide them with opportunities to
demonstrate their leadership skills; were 43.2% positive that physical conditions (noise level,
temperature, lighting, cleanliness in the workplace) allow employees to perform their jobs well;
were 43.2% positive that, overall, their immediate supervisors/team leaders are doing a good job;
were 42.9% positive that their organization has prepared employees for potential security threats;
were 41.7% positive that they have trust and confidence in their supervisors; were 40.5%
positive that supervisors/team leaders in their work units support employee development; were
40.5% positive that discussions with their supervisors/team leaders about their performance are
worthwhile; were 35.1% positive that they are given a real opportunity to improve their skills in
their organization; were 32.4% positive that managers support collaboration across work units to
accomplish work objectives and that their talents are used well in the workplace; were 31.4%
positive that they feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things; were
29.7% positive that employees are recognized for providing high quality products and services,
that creativity and innovation are rewarded, and that managers communicate the goals and
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

43
priorities of the organization; were 29.7% positive that their workloads are reasonable; and were
29.4% positive that managers review and evaluate the organization’s progress toward meeting its
goals and objectives.
From here, Round Hill Park’s positive ratings start to become dismally low. That is,
employees were 27% positive that managers/team leaders work well with employees of different
backgrounds and that managers promote communication among different work units (about
projects, goals, needed resources); were 27% positive that their supervisors/team leaders provide
them with constructive suggestions to improve their job performance; were 26.5% positive that
awards in their work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs and that arbitrary
action, personal favoritism, and coercion for partisan political purposes are not tolerated; were
22.6% positive that they believe the results of the EVS will be used to make their agency a better
place to work; were 21.6% positive that their training needs are assessed; were 20.6% positive
that senior leaders demonstrate support for work/life programs; were 18.9% positive that they
have sufficient resources (people, materials, budget) to get their jobs done; were 17.1% positive
that their organization’s leaders maintain high standards of honesty and integrity; were 16.2%
positive that their skill level in their work units improved in the past year and that they are
satisfied with the policies and practices of their senior leaders; were 14.3% positive that, in their
work units, steps are taken to deal with poor performers who cannot or will not improve; were
13.9% positive that their work units are able to recruit people with the right skills; and were
10.8% positive that leaders in their organization generate high levels of motivation and
commitment in the workforce; were 8.6% positive that, in their work units, differences in
performance are recognized in a meaningful way; were 8.3% positive that pay raises depend on
how well employees perform their jobs; and were 8.1% positive that promotions in their work
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

44
units are based on merit (see Figure 3). Assumed organization causes to be validated are
employees’ increased need for upward communication without fear of reprisal, for exposure to
employees in other departments within the organization, for opportunities to contribute
information to facilitate decision-making and problem-solving processes in the organization, for
more reciprocal accountability, more clearly stated organizational goals, more flexibility within
the organization and from leadership for employees to adjust work processes to gain efficiencies.

Figure 3. Positive response % for EVS organization items

0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Superv treats me w/respect
Superv talked about my perf in past 6 mos
Employees share job knowledge
Co-workers coop to get job done
Perf appraisal reflects perf
Policies/programs promote diversity
Superv committed workforce rep of…
Phys conditions allow employees to do…
Org not prepared employees for…
Superv supports employee dev
Employees talents used well in workplace
Emp encouraged toward new ways of…
Creativity/innovation rewarded
Employees' workload reasonable
Mgrs/Superv work well with…
Superv give constructive sugg to…
Arbitrary action, coercion, favoritism…
Training needs are assessed
Sufficient resources for job
Unit Skill lvl imp in last yr
Poor performers are dealt with
Ldrs gen motiv/comm
Pay raises depend on employee perf
Positive Response
Percentages for
EVS Organization
Items
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

45
Validating Assumed Causes
Clark and Estes (2006) states that making assumptions about the causes of performance
problems can be problematic in the absence of validation and acting on assumed causes that are
incorrect will exacerbate the problem. Therefore, Clark and Estes (2006) recommend validating
assumed causes by directly investigating them through the use of interviews, focus groups,
observations, and informal conversations.
As discussed in Chapter 2, most employee satisfaction studies pertaining to public
employees have been quantitative. Understandably, most researchers choose this method
because data collection is less time consuming, because results are generalizable (if random
samples are used) to other populations, and because large numbers of people can be included in a
sample (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). However, there are some study questions (“why” or
“how” questions) that simply cannot be answered using only quantitative methods (McEwan &
McEwan, 2003). In this study, the validation effort focused on understanding the “what” and
“why” of job satisfaction (or lack thereof) from employees’ perspectives. That is why the
current study used a qualitative (discussion group observation, document analysis, and phone
interviews) approach to obtain the depth and breadth of information required to dig deep into the
assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational causes of employee satisfaction levels at
Round Hill Park indicated by the literature and the EVS results.
Observations. Results of the 2012 EVS indicate that Round Hill Park scored in the
bottom quartile among parks within the NPS. As a result, the NPS identified Round Hill Park to
receive a two-day focused discussion session, facilitated by NPS employees, to address issues
related to employee satisfaction levels. The agenda consisted of the facilitator distributing the
Round Hill Park EVS results to 74 participants, discussing the results, and then breaking the
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

46
employees out into small groups and asking them to discuss six questions (see Appendix D)
regarding the EVS results and to record their collaborative responses on chart paper to share with
the rest of the class. The focused discussion session concluded with employees’ identification of
possible courses of action to improve employee satisfaction. These action plans became the data
source for the document analysis, described next.
Document analysis. During the facilitated group sessions at Round Hill Park,
participants were assigned to small groups to pick an EVS category that they felt was most
important to focus on in order to improve employee satisfaction and develop an action plan for
that category. The action plan format included identifying the focus area, stating the
purpose/objective of the plan (including asking what needs to be created, started, changed,
developed, or stopped), developing possible actions for implementation, stating the results the
action plan would have (including what would it increase, improve, or decrease) if implemented,
and what resources would be required to carry out the action plan. These action plans (see
Appendix F) were the documents analyzed as part of the validation process.
Interviews. Finally, to obtain more detailed information (in a safer environment)
regarding the employees’ perspectives of the satisfaction problem, to clarify any confusion that
might have arisen during observation sessions, and to validate the findings from the focused
discussion session observations and employees’ action plans, one-on-one telephone interviews
were conducted with eight discussion session participants one week after the sessions. At the
end of each guided discussion session, the facilitator handed Round Hill employee participants
an index card on which to print their contact information if they would like to volunteer to
participate in a follow-up phone interview one week after the sessions. Volunteers handed the
cards to the facilitator who, in turn, gave them to the observer (who would also be conducting the
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

47
phone interviews) after the participants left the room. Each volunteer was contacted by e-mail or
phone the week after the guided discussion sessions to set an appointment for a phone interview.
Two days later, the volunteers who had not yet interviewed were contacted again. Each
interview took approximately 30 minutes and each interviewee was asked seven questions
(Appendix C).
In accordance with the University of Southern California’s research policies, this research
project was submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval/disapproval. Once
the project was approved, the information collected during this study was used solely to help
assist the NPS improve employee satisfaction at Round Hill Park. All names of people and parks
remained anonymous and any transcribed or recorded data was destroyed upon completion of
analysis. Since this was a mixed methods study using a sample of convenience, the results will
not be generalized to other populations outside the current study.
In summary, focusing the data collection on possible knowledge, motivation, and
organization barriers, as well as on elements related to attracting and retaining talented
employees, was expected to result in determining causes and solutions to the gap between the
current and desired Round Hill Park employee satisfaction level. Specifically, observations,
document analysis, and interviews conducted in this study were used to validate the causes and
solutions for low employee satisfaction that surfaced during the group discussion sessions and to
check for additional causes suggested by Clark and Estes (2008), but not mentioned during the
discussion sessions. Also, data collected during and after the Round Hill Park group discussion
sessions were expected to help employees develop clear and measurable long- and short-term
goals, at all levels of the organization (leadership, management, and subordinate employees), that
were most likely to increase employee satisfaction levels (Clark & Estes, 2008). The measure
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

48
that will be used to determine achievement of both the NPS and Round Hill Park goals will be
increased satisfaction ratings on the 2016 EVS.
Reliability and Validity
Triangulation (using different data collection sources), using rich descriptions to describe
the findings, and clarifying any biases the researcher might have toward the study were used to
further address the validity or accuracy of the results (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). To
determine reliability (consistency of research approach), a step-by-step documentation of the
procedures used in the current study was recorded and a strict protocol of checking transcripts
for any obvious errors that might have been made during transcription was followed.
Data Analysis
Analysis was conducted using data collected during observations of Round Hill Park
discussion sessions, collected from Round Hill employee action plans created during the
discussion sessions, and collected from telephone interviews with Round Hill employees after
the discussion sessions. These data were filtered by causes and prioritized by most common
occurrence in all three data sources. Causes of employee satisfaction were considered validated
when similar knowledge, motivation, and organization themes surfaced in all three data sources
(discussion session observation, action plans, and phone interviews) resulting in cross-
verification of the same information (including areas of agreement or of divergence).
Data collected from the observations, employee action plans, and interviews will be
discussed and analyzed in Chapter 4 using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis. Specifically,
matching themes/ideas found during discussion group observations, during analysis of employee
action plans, and during phone interviews will be analyzed to look for knowledge, motivation, or
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

49
organizational causes for Round Hill Park’s gap in employee satisfaction levels and for solutions
that have a high probability of closing the gap.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

50
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has been surveying its employees for over a
decade to determine Federal Government employees’ satisfaction with their work environments.
One of the agencies within the Federal Government, the National Park Service (NPS),
consistently received low ratings on this survey and in 2012 the OPM disaggregated the results
and the NPS was able to view each park’s results for the first time in the history of the survey.
Upon receipt of the 2012 Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) results, NPS leadership decided to
investigate their lowest ranking parks further to determine why. The purpose of this study was to
analyze the assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational causes of low employee
satisfaction at one park in particular, Round Hill Park. The study also explored possible
solutions to the suggested causes that might improve Round Hill Park employee satisfaction and
begin closing the gap between the current and desired satisfaction ratings.
The presumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational causes for Round Hill’s low
employee satisfaction ratings were discussed in Chapter 3. The questions guiding this gap
analysis were:
1. What are the perceived causes of the gap between the current level of employee
satisfaction at Round Hill Park and the NPS desired level, or what are the perceived
causes that prevent 100% employee satisfaction?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
To validate the assumed causes (see Appendix A, Table A5) of Round Hill Park
employees’ low satisfaction ratings, qualitative data were collected using the observations from
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

51
the guided discussion sessions, the document analysis of the action plans, and the follow-up
phone interviews with employees who participated in the discussion sessions.
The remainder of this chapter will include a description of the participating stakeholders,
the results of the study, and a synthesis of the data categorized by knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
In this section, an analysis of the qualitative data was collected to answer the following
study question: What are the perceived causes of the gap between the current level of employee
satisfaction at Round Hill Park and the NPS desired level, or what are the perceived causes that
prevent 100% employee satisfaction? Assumed causes suggested by the literature and EVS
results and findings from observations, document analysis, and interviews will be used to
identify and validate the knowledge, motivation, or organizational barriers to employee
satisfaction at Round Hill Park. EVS survey items and results are provided in Appendix B, EVS
assumed causes are provided in Appendix C, and employee action plans are available in
Appendix F. Survey data will be synthesized with observation, action plan, and interview data to
present the findings.
Findings from Observations
Factual knowledge: employees want to know more (from a reliable source) about
issues and concerns affecting their workplace or their jobs. Factual knowledge (the basic
information employees need to solve problems) also appeared to be a cause of low employee
satisfaction. For example, one employee argued, “I don’t understand why we weren’t told of
priority changes concerning the tasks/problems we were assigned to solve before we were
scolded by leadership for not working on the task with the highest priority.” Another employee
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

52
shared, and others agreed, that they would be “working on a project for weeks before they heard,
through the grapevine, that the project had long been cancelled and the problem no longer
needed solving.” Another offered that they “believed morale would improve if leadership would
just tell employees what is going on in the organization” and yet another employee stated that,
“leadership should give us more details concerning why we are being asked to do whatever task
we are being asked to do so we can help the process and accomplish the task more efficiently.”
Conceptual knowledge: employees want to know how the organization ’s various
divisions factor into the park ’s mission, objectives, and vision. Similar to the survey results,
observation during the discussion sessions also revealed lack of information as a knowledge
cause for low employee satisfaction. Employees at the supervisory and non-supervisory levels
were not satisfied with the amount of information they were receiving about what was happening
within their organization. Specifically, employees indicated that they lacked the conceptual
knowledge necessary to understand the inter-relationships among the basic divisions within the
organization that allow them to work together to accomplish the mission. That is, employees
expressed a desire for more information regarding the organization’s mission and goals, even if it
was only the “big picture” version. Employees also stated that they felt like they were working
in a vacuum or silo because they did not know what other divisions within the organization were
doing, and some stated that they did not even know who the division chiefs were or who
comprised the management team. Ultimately, employees stated that they felt that they needed to
know the mission, objectives, and vision for their organization and needed more information
regarding how each division and its employees contribute.
Procedural knowledge: employees want to know how to communicate with the other
divisions and want to know how to obtain the training required to do their collateral jobs
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

53
(could also be organizational). Employees indicated that they did not have the procedural
knowledge required to effectively communicate with other division employees. Specifically, one
employee stated she wanted to reach out to another division for information regarding a project
she was working on, but was not sure if she needed permission from leadership to do so.
Another argued that:
I can’t get my work done because when I need something from another division, I can’t
get their cooperation because their division chief hates my division chief. How do I
communicate with other park employees that aren’t in my division, when I need their
help?
Also, employees at the supervisory and non-supervisory levels indicated that they did not
feel that they had the procedural knowledge necessary to accomplish the collateral duties they
were being assigned. In fact, during a non-supervisor employee discussion session, two of seven
groups indicated surprise at the high rating for employee skills/mission match. They said they
were surprised because no one is doing what they were hired to do these days. They stated that
many employees are doing collateral duties not in their job descriptions and also mentioned that
employees do not know how to do the collateral jobs they are being asked to do. Further, they
did not feel that some supervisors had the proper training to do the jobs they were being asked to
do. Some employees stated that they did not understand why the organization assigned “acting”
supervisors to their units who micromanaged their work, but did not have the knowledge,
training, or experience to do so. Some went so far as to specifically state that employees are not
working at full potential because they are doing so many collateral duties and assigned to
“acting” employee positions that they do not have the skills or training to do.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

54
Two management team participants also expressed surprise that the skills/mission match
category was as high as it was because of all the collateral duties employees are being asked to
do. However, contrary to the employee and supervisor group, they felt that the employees doing
collateral duties were often highly overqualified for the collateral duties and did not indicate that
employees lacked the knowledge or skills required to perform those extra duties. Different still,
some employees in the supervisor discussion session indicated that they felt the ratings for the
skills/mission match were just right.
Metacognitive knowledge: employees need to know that they are able to perform the
duties required for their collateral jobs. Finally, many employees at all levels expressed
concern that they did not feel they had the ability to successfully perform the collateral work they
were being asked to do, indicating metacognitive knowledge was a concern. Specifically,
employees stated that the quality of work they produce for their “real” job was something they
were proud of while the quality of their work in their collateral job was “not so much” because
they did not feel capable of doing the work. Several employees talked about how much they
loved the jobs they were originally hired to do because they were the experts at them and how
much they hated doing the collateral jobs because they were not confident that they had the
ability to do the jobs or do them well enough to satisfy leadership. Many employees at all levels
agreed that collateral duties for which they had little confidence of doing correctly were
consuming their work days and robbing the time necessary to continue doing stellar quality work
in their “real” duties.
Finally, when asked which three of the fourteen EVS categories would make the biggest
difference in employee engagement, if changed, the majority of employees in three of the four
discussion groups identified Effective Leadership - Empowerment Category as one of their top
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

55
three choices. In fact, this was the top category chosen in the supervisors’ discussion session and
the second employees’ discussion session to make the biggest difference in employee
engagement, if changed. This category included the EVS knowledge item concerning
employees’ satisfaction with the information they receive from management on what’s going on
in their organization.
Findings from Employee Action Plans
Factual knowledge. Employees identified more timely and reliable (preferably from
supervisors and leadership) communication about issues concerning the workplace and jobs as
the most important factual knowledge issue to be addressed.
Conceptual knowledge. Employees identified the need to know how the divisions within
the organization factor into accomplishing the park’s mission, objectives, and vision as the most
important conceptual knowledge issue to be addressed.
Procedural knowledge. Employees identified the need to know how to communicate
with employees in other divisions, how to create an operations plan to include cross-divisional
input, and how to bring the park’s staff closer together (divisions, supervisors and employees) as
the most important procedural knowledge issues to be addressed.
Metacognitive knowledge. Employees identified the need to feel that they are capable of
completing tasks they are being asked to complete, particularly when they are being asked to do
additional duties that they do not feel they are capable of doing as the most important
metacognitive knowledge issue to be addressed.
Findings from Interviews
Factual knowledge: employees want to know more (from a reliable source) about
issues and concerns affecting their workplace or their jobs. Echoing the survey results and
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

56
observation and action plan findings, Round Hill Park interviewees expressed concern over the
lack of factual knowledge in their organization. Comments included, “I am in a unique position,
I have seen both sides (management and employee), all the information is not available to all
employees,” and:
Nobody trusts management, they say they can’t tell us stuff, but I guarantee you that we
might be 185 miles long, but within four hours we know about any story out there. So,
we know things anyway, they should just tell us officially. I could get so much more
work done if I didn’t have to sit here and try to figure out which stories are true.
Another suggested, “They just need to communicate to us if their hands are tied, we will
understand.” Still others are frustrated that when they ask leadership questions about the status
of a project, and leadership says they have to get back with them, and fail to do so. One
supervisor commented:
Communication is definitely a problem...most organizations are divided by floors in a
building, but we are divided by over 150 miles. Extra care needs to be taken with
communication. It is interesting that some information is protected like we’re an
intelligence agency or something. So compartmentalized.
Another interviewee stated that nobody tells them anything and nothing is communicated.
Conceptual knowledge: employees want to know how the organization ’s various
divisions factor into the park ’s mission, objectives, and vision. Similar to the survey results
and observation and action plan findings, the lack of conceptual knowledge was apparent during
the phone interviews. For example, one interviewee mentioned that it is unclear how the various
divisions factor into the overall park mission and suggested that the management team should try
to remedy that:
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

57
I think we talked about everyone working within their own silos. I feel like sometimes
the management team should be rotated in and out so more (management) employees
could see how things work and understand what it takes to make things happen so that,
when they return to their regular jobs, they could bring that experience and knowledge
back to the employees and help them understand those jobs.
Procedural knowledge: employees want to know how to communicate with the other
divisions and want to know how to obtain the training required to do their collateral jobs
(could also be organizational). Similar to the survey results and observation and action plan
findings, the interviews revealed that procedural knowledge was a possible cause for low
employee satisfaction when they stated that employees do not know how to do the jobs they are
doing or know the specific steps required to communicate within their own or other divisions to
accomplish their jobs. Specifically, one employee said, “They have people working in fields that
they don’t know how...don’t want to do, just because they can.” One interviewee was concerned
with compliance with written guidance or reference manuals (RM) for their respective areas,
“There are many in acting positions who have no experience in the position they are acting in
and that is a problem. You don’t know what you don’t know. Does that make sense? We are
concerned with RM22.” Some interviewees indicated that division chiefs need to know more:
I think the problem of not knowing what or how to do something would be more at the
next level down, the division chiefs. There are division chiefs who are only acting
division chiefs with no experience in their division, so there is a learning curve going on
for them.
Two interviewees acknowledged that even leadership is bound by procedures when trying to
accomplish the mission:
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

58
Headquarters has paperwork and background work that has to be done that takes time
before we start work on a project. We don’t know what is required because we don’t
know about that, but it might help us if they tell us what is required. Some people don’t
want to know, but I do.
The second stated that, “Regional leadership should make clear to employees when there are
problems. Just keep them informed of the process so they understand.” Others indicated, that
knowing how to communicate with the other divisions in the park might help with all of these
issues by using the synergies available to weave together the information necessary from others’
experience and training to accomplish their jobs and, ultimately, the mission.
Metacognitive knowledge. The only possible metacognitive knowledge issue uncovered
during the phone interviews was one interviewee stating that he did not feel he knew when or
why he should do some of the collateral duties he was being asked to do. But he clarified that he
did not feel he had been properly trained for the collateral duties, so this would more likely be a
procedural knowledge or organization cause. It should be noted that he wanted it to be made
very clear that he was speaking only for himself.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
The discussion session observations, action plan analysis, and phone interviews revealed
that employees are not satisfied with the information they receive regarding what is going on in
their organization and are not very satisfied with the training (could also be an organizational
cause) they receive to help them know how to do their present jobs. This finding was consistent
in the discussion session observations, action plan analysis, and phone interviews and, therefore,
validated that employees’ not knowing enough about issues and concerns affecting their
organization and not knowing how to do their current jobs because they did not receive proper
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

59
training are knowledge causes for Round Hill’s low employee satisfaction. Specifically,
employees want to know more (from reliable sources) about issues and concerns affecting their
workplace or their jobs (factual knowledge); want to know how the organization’s various
divisions factor into the park’s mission, objectives, and vision (conceptual knowledge); and want
to know how to communicate with the other divisions (procedural knowledge).
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Findings from Observations
Employees want to feel that they, their knowledge, and experience are trusted and
valued, want to be empowered to accomplish their jobs more effectively and efficiently, and
want to be included in decision-making processes that affect their job or organization.
During the guided discussion sessions, motivation was targeted as a barrier to higher employee
satisfaction levels at Round Hill Park. Similar to the EVS results, employees indicated that they
are not satisfied with their opportunities for promotion at Round Hill Park. Specifically,
employees stated that there is no clear career progression outlined for Round Hill employees and
that they would like to see more employees being promoted from within the organization rather
than bringing new employees in from outside the park system. Employees also revealed that
they do not feel that they have a chance at the good park jobs because they are not filled fairly.
They cited several examples of positions being advertised and re-advertised just to reach and hire
a certain “favorite” person.
Employees also argued that they do not feel personal empowerment with respect to their
current job. One rated empowerment as most important, “The most important issue is
empowerment, both individually and as a group.” Another employee agreed, “Empowerment,
we want more to be better stewards of our park.” Yet another employee pleaded, “Trust
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

60
employees to conduct and complete their jobs!” Several employees echoed the lack of employee
empowerment and stated that communication is downward, regulations are used to
micromanage. They further discussed the need for the synergies obtained from both individual
and cohesive group empowerment.
Supervisors and non-supervisor employees discussed at length the need for more
recognition for employees who are doing a good job. They all agreed that it did not have to be
anything elaborate or anything that would cost money. A simple thanks, hand shake, or personal
visit to the recipient’s workplace would go a long way toward improving employees’ attitudes
and perceptions of leadership.
Employees also indicated that they do not have a great deal of respect for their
organization’s senior leaders. They offered that leadership makes decisions that are not in the
best interest of the park or taxpayers. For example, one employee noted that he was the only
person that does the specific job he was hired to do at Round Hill Park and stated that, “We serve
the public and when we have to attend meetings during our work times, our job doesn’t get
done.” Another had this to say about leadership decisions during a time of minimum staffing, “I
have to min run (do the minimum required) my job, they’re driving me toward mediocrity and
it’s not safe or good for morale. Round Hill is not holding employees accountable.” Some
suggested that the reason leadership is making bad decisions is because they do not include
employees (the experts in their jobs) in discussions leading up to those decisions. For example,
one employee stated that, “Leadership does not solicit input from employees before making
decisions that cost the taxpayers more money than it needs to.” Another employee further
explained that, “Leadership tells us to shut off heat in park buildings, but we tell them it will
eventually fall down from doing that. Leadership says to just let it fall, but then our park is gone
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

61
and taxpayer money is wasted.” Employees stated that their chiefs are afraid of the
superintendent and blindly do whatever they are told to do, which, in turn, results in supervisors
telling employees that they need drop everything and do another task because the superintendent
wants them to. During a discussion of Round Hill being understaffed and overworked, one
employee noted, “Hot items change each day and you can’t get your regular work done. Can’t
even do the hot topics.” Employees further revealed that they think leadership spends money in
ways they do not understand and discussed a time when Round Hill Park funds were used to pay
for another park because it did not spend its money prudently. One employee laid the blame
squarely on the superintendent, “All goes through the superintendent, superintendent says to do
it, so it’s all the superintendent’s fault.”
Finally, when asked which three of the fourteen EVS categories would make the biggest
difference in employee engagement, if changed, the majority of employees in all four discussion
groups identified Effective Leadership - Leadership Category as one of their top three choices.
In fact, this was the only category selected to be a top three category by all four groups and the
management team unanimously chose this category as their number one choice. This category
included the EVS motivation item concerning employees’ level of respect for the organization’s
senior leadership, which is very, very low at Round Hill (24%). Other top three categories
chosen that included motivation items were the Effective Leadership - Empowerment Category
that included employees’ feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work processes
(16%) and satisfaction with their involvement in decisions that affect their work (22%); the
Effective Leadership - Fairness Category that included employees’ ability to disclose violations
of laws, rules, or regulations without fear of reprisal (29%); and the Performance-Based Rewards
and Advancement Category that included employees’ satisfaction with the recognition they
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

62
receive for doing a good job (19%) and satisfaction with their opportunity to get a better job in
their organization (14%). The empowerment category was the number one category of choice
for the supervisor session, one of the employee sessions, and in the top three categories of three
of the four groups.
Findings from Employee Action Plans
Employees identified the need to feel that their knowledge and experience were trusted
and valued (enough to be included in decision-making and problem-solving processes) and to
feel empowered to accomplish their jobs more effectively and efficiently as the most important
motivation issues that needed to be addressed.
Findings from Interviews
Employees want to feel that they, their knowledge, and experience are trusted and
valued, want to be empowered to accomplish their jobs more effectively and efficiently,
want to be included in decision-making processes that affect their job or organization.
Interviewees were forthcoming in sharing their thoughts on how they thought motivation
factored into the low employee satisfaction ratings at Round Hill Park. Several interviewees
cited the lack of promotion opportunities as one of the reasons for low satisfaction. For example,
one employee stated, “There are no opportunities for advancement and we are basically
squelched.” Others stated, “They hold us back and down” and “People who work hard get let go
and we don’t know why.” Also, employee empowerment for their work surfaced as a motivation
factor through statements like, “No trust from leadership is a factor in preventing 100%
satisfaction,” and “Management micromanages my work, just trust me to do my work.”
Interviewees also indicated lack of respect for their organization’s senior leaders as a
factor in Round Hill Park employees’ low satisfaction ratings. The statement made by one
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

63
employee, “Management doesn’t trust us to do our jobs and nobody trusts management” seemed
to echo throughout all interviews. Others added, “Those who can do something, don’t care
enough” and:
There is a management layer that’s all about me. Will this get me promoted, will this get
me more pay, and will this get me attention. It’s all about them. They don’t care about
or value us. No compassion or care. Employees blame the superintendent for
everything.
Another added, “Our superintendent has worked in the park service for a long time (over 30
years) and should know how to get things done. We have got to change the detachment of the
superintendent.” Others offered these comments, “Some supervisors can take the pressure and
others can’t, they come unglued. If they would stop and think before they say things they wish
they hadn’t, they wouldn’t say certain things,” “I do feel that certain people can’t think outside
the box. They get stuck in the regulations. This came up a lot during the recent sequester,
furlough, and budget cuts,” “We need new blood that can think outside the box,” and:
So, I think the park needs to look at things differently. It is a small organization and, as a
result, should be nimble and dynamic. If it’s not, it begins to die from within. My
background is private sector, the park service leadership is bound by rules, regulations,
and a mindset that focuses more on goals than mission. If they would ask us before they
make certain decisions, we could save them and the park a lot of time, effort, and money
because we do the job, we have a pretty good idea of what might work and what won’t.
One final statement seemed to sum it all up:
I heard in a meeting yesterday that our superintendent announced that based on the EVS
results, he did not think there was an issue with his leadership. Our jaws dropped. There
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

64
is definitely denial at the upper echelon of leadership at our park. It is time for a change
and I don’t think we will have better communication or empowerment until leadership
changes.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
The guided discussion sessions, action plans, and phone interviews revealed that
employees had very little respect for and were not satisfied with the job that management and
senior leaders were doing (specifically stated that park leadership is not visible and does not
directly engage with park employees), did not feel empowered to do their work adequately and
efficiently, and were not satisfied with their level of involvement in decisions that affect their
work. However, the motivation items that surfaced during all three data collection events
(observation, action plan analysis, and interview) and are validated causes of low satisfaction
were that employees did not feel trusted, valued, or empowered in the workplace and employees
were not satisfied with their level of involvement in the park’s decision-making processes. It
should be noted that while Round Hill Park employees indicated on the EVS and during the
discussion sessions that they were not satisfied with the recognition they received for doing good
work, this item was not mentioned during the action plan analysis or phone interviews.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
Findings from Observations
Employees want to have adequate resources (people, materials, training, budget) to
do their jobs safely and properly. During the guided discussion sessions (as in the survey), the
organization was targeted as a barrier to higher employee satisfaction levels at Round Hill Park.
That is, while several employees mentioned that employee satisfaction was low because pay
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

65
raises do not necessarily depend on how well employees perform their jobs, one employee stated
it the clearest:
I have seen headquarters employees sit in an office not doing anything and they get the
same performance report and bonuses as those who worked hard. I put my life on the
line last year...and all I got was eight hours off (no bonus and the same rating as those
who did nothing but sit at a desk all day). Makes me not want to do anything.
Others blamed the fact that steps are not taken to deal with poor performers who cannot or will
not improve. Specifically, one employee noted that leadership is not holding people accountable
and just keep kicking the bad people around within the organization. Another stated, “If
employees are not pulling their weight for the team, correct it.”
Employees also cited insufficient resources (equipment, funds, training, and manpower)
to do their jobs as a reason for low satisfaction ratings. Specifically, one employee stated,
“We’ve been lied to five times about getting us tools. We’ve been told it’s because of lost
paperwork, we shouldn’t hold still for it...empty promises.” Others indicated that, “The Park
Police’s radio system is not working and is going to get someone killed.” Many employees
offered that there are a lot of problems at Round Hill due to information technology (IT)
problems that keep people from doing their jobs while another employee blamed under-staffing
and the replacement of permanent staff positions with “acting, acting, unofficial, staff” for low
employee satisfaction. One discussion session participant put it bluntly, “They don’t give a darn
about this operation. There aren’t enough people to do normal jobs because of additional
duties.”
Some employees offered that differences in performance are not recognized in a
meaningful way. Specifically, one employee argued that employees feel that they are not being
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

66
valued, “We never celebrate our successes. People who leave the office, just leave. There is no
get together to thank them for their service, whether it was good or bad.” A spokesperson for
one of the activity groups reported that, “If someone does something good, we can’t talk about it
because it might make someone else feel bad.” Another employee commented that accolades are
not presented in a way that makes the recipient feel they are sincere, if they are presented at all.
Instead of receiving thanks for a job well done one-on-one with leadership, it is done only during
a large gathering to get the leader more attention. In defense of leadership, an employee stated
that leadership is too busy to do the paperwork required to acknowledge performance, but one
quickly rebutted with, “Nobody is so busy that they can’t take the time to recognize people’s
accomplishments with some type of award.”
Another item identified as an organizational barrier to employee satisfaction was that
promotions do not appear to be based on merit. Instead, one employee argued that, “Career
advancement and development is only accomplished by the buddy system to promote.”
“Leadership is disengaged...(there are) people who aren’t doing their job, then promoted quick
(conduct issues, but still promoted). Behavior like that would get you fired in the civilian sector.
NO ACCOUNTABILITY!”
A common theme running through all four sessions at Round Hill Park concerned how
this EVS discussion session was any different from similar past discussions. Specifically, many
employees were not optimistic that the results of this survey would be used to make their park a
better place to work. Two participants asked the hard questions, “How will this process be
different from all other times we’ve tried to fix this? Been here done that. Management knows
this, it is the same old stuff” while another asked, “You need an agency of action to implement
change, like the EPA or intelligence agencies. The NPS is not an agency of action, how is this
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

67
going to get better if we are not an agency of action?” Some were on the fence with statements
like, “We all hope this makes a difference, but nobody thinks it will” and “I’m worried nothing
will come of this.” While most had reservations, there were a few who voiced optimism, “Glad
the results are out so they can be seen and acted on” and “I am pleased that these results can be a
vehicle for action.”
Some Round Hill employees argued that morale would improve if the organization would
allot more money for training and all types of development programs, particularly for those
performing collateral duties that they are not trained for. Others stated that morale would
increase if the park’s leaders would simply focus on generating high levels of motivation and
commitment in the workplace. That is, employees stated that simply being nice to employees or
being more visible or accessible would improve morale. With statements like, “Headquarters
never comes to see us” and “We only hear from headquarters leadership when there’s a problem
or emergency,” employees suggest that if leadership were more visible in the field, during good
and bad times, satisfaction would improve.
Employees also indicated that satisfaction was low because employees are not satisfied
with the policies and practices of their senior leaders. Employees contended that leadership does
not solicit employee input, makes decisions in a vacuum, does not stick with their decisions, and
blames employees for mission failure. They clarified that leadership has little focus, jumps from
one new initiative or emergency to another, and does not consult with employees for input.
Several employees also offered that leadership should develop a vision that agrees with the
mission and stick to that. They indicated that park leaders do not have an annual operational
plan that includes cross-divisional input that is both realistic and consistent with park legislation
and resources in general. Cross-divisional input was emphasized because many employees
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

68
voiced concern with upper level management being so territorial. Specifically, they stressed that
divisions do not work together and synergies are lost and how, currently, having to coordinate
with a division chief other than their own was a stopping block for their work. One employee
confirmed that, “Working across divisions is difficult.” Another agreed, “We don’t function as a
whole. Different divisions don’t share or help other divisions. They don’t move as a mass,
they’re splintered.” To stress the point further, one headquarters employee circled the
conversation back to the park police radio dilemma, “We are working in a vacuum, if I knew the
park police needed radios, I could have funneled money to them to buy radios.”
One employee stated that, “Management, and higher up, gives us fires and we can’t put
them out because they keep throwing gas on it. We can’t do our job because of it.”
Interestingly, even one of the management team participants revealed, “We get no good, clear
guidance from leadership higher up (WASO), they keep switching back and forth on decisions
and that makes us look bad to employees.” Employees also complained that headquarters
leadership does not spend much time in the park, does not know what is going on in the park,
and that they should spend time in the park (field) to help them become more aware of park
happenings. A member of the management team agreed, “Leadership needs to get out and be
with people and not be doing desk work. The Call to Action is too time consuming.” One
employee drove this point home with the statement, “Who is the management team? We don’t
even know who they are.”
Finally, several employees and supervisors expressed concern over how leadership
handles employee furlough or termination notices. One employee nearly choked on his words as
he revealed:
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

69
I had a call yesterday, while my employee was here at this meeting, that he’ll be
furloughed for six months. Headquarters management doesn’t understand what it takes
to keep our areas going. I only have two employees to begin with...I lost half of my team
with one employee gone. Leadership needs to keep me informed and include me in
decisions. It is difficult for us as supervisors to tell employees with no notice.
Finally, when asked which three of the fourteen EVS categories would make the biggest
difference in employee engagement, if changed, the majority of employees in three of the four
discussion groups identified the Effective Leadership - Empowerment Category as one of their
top three choices. In fact, this was the top category chosen in the supervisors’ discussion session
and the second employees’ discussion session to make the biggest difference in employee
engagement, if changed. This category included the EVS organization items concerning
employees’ satisfaction that their leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in
the workforce and that their organization’s leaders maintain high standards of honesty and
integrity. Other categories making the employees’ top three list were the Teamwork Category,
the Training/Development Category, the Strategic Management Category, the Effective
leadership - Supervisor Category, the Effective Leadership - Fairness Category, and the
Performance-Based Rewards and Advancement Category. All of these categories contained
EVS organization items.
Findings from Employee Action Plans
Employees identified wanting adequate resources (people, training, equipment, IT
resources, funding) to be allocated or re-allocated to do their jobs properly and safely,
empowering employees to make decisions about accomplishing their jobs, and including
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

70
employees in decisions involving their jobs/work area as the most important organization issues
to be addressed.
Findings from Interviews
Employees want to have adequate resources (people, materials, training, budget) to
do their jobs safely and properly. Interviewees were forthcoming in sharing their thoughts on
how the organization contributes to low employee satisfaction at Round Hill Park. Similar to
employees who took the survey and participated in the discussion groups, one interviewee stated
that the organization does not take steps to deal with poor performers who cannot or will not
improve and asked if she could give an example:
An employee that has worked here for four years was caught by 10 people who took
pictures and laughed about it...pictures of him sleeping at his desk. These were circulated
from one end of the park to the other and nothing has been done. But, a maintenance
employee was found sleeping during his lunch break and he was suspended from work
for four days. Then, employees asked management what the policy was about sleeping
during work and the answer was that they don’t tolerate it. The superintendent is useless,
nothing is done, and the worker sleeping at his desk is a GS-11.
One employee stated it simply, “This park is a very top down strategic organization with no
ability to hire/fire who you want and can’t get rid of personnel that aren’t up to the task.”
Several employees talked about how the park lacks sufficient resources (people,
materials, budget) to get the job done. Specifically, one employee added:
There are a number of causes for the low satisfaction levels at Round Hill, but providing
the minimum tools and equipment to do our job is number one. For example, there is a
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

71
division in our park that has gone without reliable phone and computer service for five
years.
Another organization cause of low employee satisfaction pointed out by one of the interviewees
was that there seems to be favoritism going on in the organization when it comes to promotions
in the organization. “We need to just go by the book so that everyone is treated the same.”
In addition to the organization causes of low Round Hill Park employee satisfaction
discussed above, interviewees shared that morale was being influenced by employees’ mixed
feelings about whether the results of this survey will be used to make their agency a better place
to work:
If anything comes from this, morale would improve. Everyone had a chance to spill
what’s been driving them crazy. It was basically a gripe session. Everyone was feeling
pretty good after the meeting, then the next day everyone was feeling that maybe it was
just a check off for management, and now everyone is pretty much feeling that not a darn
thing will be done about it.
Another interviewee had this to say:
The optimist in me thinks it’s possible, the realist thinks it’s possible that nothing could
happen, and the pessimist in me thinks nothing will happen. I love my job and I love
working in the National Park System. I hope something comes from this and we are able
to make people happier. I plan to be around a long time and it is draining to have to work
with such unhappy people every day.
Interviewees also shared that park leaders do not generate high levels of motivation and
commitment in the workplace. One interviewee recalled:
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

72
We have had meeting, after meeting, after meeting, after meeting, and have heard that we
need to do more with less and now less with less. No one listens. We gave very honest
feedback in last week’s meeting and they have the tools to do something...they know
what’s important to us. If they don’t act on them, how do they expect morale to
improve?
Another offered this thought:
Headquarters (leadership) should come to the field to see what’s going on out here.
There’s too much textbook, rather than what’s going on. You would think that
headquarters would thank the men for their work. Instead, they complain about why you
didn’t do this or that.
One interviewee was convinced that leadership needs to change to improve morale:
I am confident that employee satisfaction would improve with leadership change. Not
everyone would be 100% happy, but they would be happier...yes happier is the word. I
would like to share a common statement that you hear here at the park, ‘This park sucks
the soul out of people.’
Another interviewee argued:
The park service is not a people-oriented organization, people aren’t valued. It’s as if the
leadership has written the book on demotivating. You know this, salary is not the highest
motivator. Certain teams seem to be valued more than others. The top down message is
that employees can be replaced or let go.
Finally, employees indicated that they were not satisfied with the policies and practices of
their senior leaders. Specifically, one interviewee discussed the importance of certain leadership
practices on employee satisfaction:
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

73
We have got to change the detachment of the superintendent. The former
superintendent...I think the reason he was so good was that he was in the field on a
regular basis. He learned every employee’s name and called them by their names. This
was across all divisions, not just one. People appreciated that. I would like to see
employees given a chance for a one-on-one with their supervisor, division chief, and
superintendent. I would like to see the superintendent ask employees, “If you could
change one thing in your area, what would you change?”
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Organization Causes
Employees identified the following organizational causes of low satisfaction at Round
Hill Park: a perception that their units do not take the necessary steps to deal with poor
performers who cannot or will not improve, that they do not have sufficient resources
(equipment, funds, training, and manpower) to get their jobs done, that promotions at work are
not based on merit, that results of the EVS will not be used to make their agency a better place to
work, that leaders do not generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the workplace,
that the policies and practices of their senior leaders work against employees, and that their
organization’s leaders do not maintain high standards of honesty and integrity. However, the
item that was addressed in all three data sources, dominated discussions, action plans, and
interviews, and was validated as an organization cause for low employee satisfaction at Round
Hill Park was that employees do not believe they have sufficient resources (equipment, funds,
training, and manpower) to do their jobs (particularly collateral duties).
It should be noted that employees’ pay raises being dependent on how well employees
perform their jobs, employees’ work performance being recognized in a meaningful way, and
assessment of employees’ training needs were not brought up during the interviews. Also,
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

74
“creativity and innovation being rewarded” was not raised during the discussion sessions,
included on action plans, or discussed during the telephone interviews.
Summary
Round Hill Park employees love the work they do and really enjoy the people they work
with. One interviewee put it best, “I’d rather take a beating than not go to work. The people I
work with are like family.” It is clear from the survey, observations, action plans, and interviews
that Round Hill employees are willing to work long and hard to get the job done, they believe
their work is important, they are constantly looking for ways to do their jobs better, they like the
kind of work they do, they feel their work gives them a sense of accomplishment, and they know
what is expected of them in their primary jobs.
However, the observations, action plans, and interviews also reveal (see Table 1 in
Chapter 5) that the key causes of low employee satisfaction that received the strongest validation
at Round Hill Park involve communication (knowledge), employee empowerment (motivation),
and resources (organization). Specifically, employees want to know more (from reliable
sources) about issues and concerns affecting their workplace or their jobs (factual knowledge);
want to know how the organization’s various divisions factor into the park’s mission, objectives,
and vision (conceptual knowledge); and want to know how to communicate with the other
divisions (procedural knowledge). Round Hill Park employees also stressed that they want to
feel that they, their knowledge, and experience are trusted and valued (motivation), want to be
empowered to accomplish their jobs more effectively and efficiently (motivation), want to be
included in decision-making processes that affect their jobs or organization (motivation), and
want to have adequate resources (people, materials, training, budget) to do their jobs safely and
properly (organization/resources).
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

75
While Chapter 4 presented the results of the survey and findings from the observations
action plans, and interviews that validated the causes for low employee satisfaction at Round Hill
Park, Chapter 5 will review what the literature says about solutions to the aforementioned causes
and present recommendations based on empirical evidence.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

76
CHAPTER 5
SOLUTIONS
The purpose of this study was to explore the perceived causes that prevent 100%
employee satisfaction at Round Hill Park and recommend solutions to address these causes.
Data were triangulated to validate the assumed causes of Round Hill Park employees’ low
satisfaction ratings and included an analysis of the discussion group observations (qualitative),
employee action plans (qualitative), and individual phone interviews (qualitative) using Clark
and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis process. Once the Round Hill participants were observed during
the NPS-focused discussion sessions, the action plans analyzed, and the phone interviews
completed, proposed knowledge, motivation, and organization causes of low employee
satisfaction were identified and proposed solutions were compared to solutions suggested by the
available literature before being recommended for implementation. That is, matching themes
and ideas generated from the three data sources were analyzed to identify knowledge,
motivation, or organization causes and solutions for Round Hill Park’s gap in employee
satisfaction levels (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The purpose of this chapter is to list the validated causes for low employee satisfaction at
Round Hill Park and recommend research-based solutions to help close the gap between the
current employee satisfaction ratings and the desired ratings. For consistency and clarity, the
solutions will be organized by the categories of validated causes (knowledge, motivation, and
organization).
Validated Causes, Selection and Rationale
The causes of low employee satisfaction that received the strongest validation at Round
Hill Park involved communication (knowledge), employee empowerment (motivation), and
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

77
resources (organization) (see Table 1). Specifically, employees stated that they want to know
more (from a reliable source) about issues and concerns affecting their workplace or their jobs
(factual knowledge); want to know how the organization’s various divisions factor into the
park’s mission, objectives, and vision (conceptual knowledge); and want to know how to
communicate with the other divisions (procedural knowledge). Round Hill Park employees also
stressed that they want to feel that they, their knowledge, and experience are trusted and valued
(motivation), want to be empowered to accomplish their jobs more effectively and efficiently
(motivation), want to be included in decision-making processes that affect their job or
organization (motivation), and want to have adequate resources (people, materials, training,
budget) to do their jobs safely and properly (organization/resources).

Table 1
Validated Causes of Low Employee Satisfaction at Round Hill Park
Measure Validated Principle Cause
Knowledge Observations
Action Plans
Interviews
Yes Information
Processing
Theory
Need more information about issues
affecting workplace/jobs (Factual
Knowledge/ Communication); about the
organization’s mission/objectives and each
division’s role (Conceptual Knowledge/
Communication); and about how to
communicate with divisions (Procedural
Knowledge/ Communication).
Motivation Observations
Action Plans
Interviews
Yes Social
Cognitive
Theory
Want to feel trusted, valued, and
empowered (Empowerment).
Want to be included in the park’s decision-
making processes (Empowerment).
Organization Observations
Action Plans
Interviews
Yes Sociocultural
Theory
Need resources (equipment, funds, training,
and manpower) to do their jobs safely and
properly (Resources).
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

78
The aforementioned causes were given the highest priority for recommending solutions
for Round Hill Park’s low employee satisfaction because they were the most validated from
triangulated sources. That is, not only did these causes dominate conversations during the
supervisor and non-supervisor group observations and phone interviews, but they also surfaced
during the action plan analysis.
Solutions for Knowledge Causes
According to Anderson et al. (2001), four categories of knowledge that could conceivably
be responsible for Round Hill Employees’ low satisfaction levels include Factual Knowledge
(basic information people must know), Conceptual Knowledge (interrelationships among basic
elements), Procedural Knowledge (how to do something), and Meta-cognitive Knowledge
(awareness of one’s own cognition). The data analyses conducted in this study validated that
low employee satisfaction at Round Hill Park is partially caused by employees’ lack of factual,
conceptual, and procedural knowledge and Clark and Estes (2008) recommend choosing
solutions based on the kind of knowledge (in this case, factual, conceptual, and procedural)
required.
Factual Knowledge
The first knowledge cause validated as a reason for low employee satisfaction ratings at
Round Hill Park is that employees feel that they do not know enough about issues and concerns
affecting their organization/job. Specifically, employees stated that they want to know more
about issues and concerns regarding anything that could potentially impact the park, the
employees, the budget, or the mission. According to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge
problems in the workplace are commonly caused by poor communication or withholding
important information from employees. However, while White, Vanc, and Stafford (2010)
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

79
agreed that effective communication within an organization is critical and that most employees
want to receive information about their organization, even if it is not critical to their jobs, it is
equally important to ensure that the amount of communication within the organization is
balanced. That is, too little communication could result in speculation and distrust while too
much information could result in information overload and cause employees to ignore the
information. Additionally, Guy (1992) studied information flow within organizations and found
that, in addition to the amount of information, the method of transmitting the information was
important. Guy (1992) argued that the transmission method affects the information received by
employees and specifically found that rigid and inflexible lines of communication (similar to
those found in public agencies) lose their reliability and usefulness as the information flows
through the rigid channels. Pandey and Garnett (2006) echoed these findings for public sector
organizations and blamed the formal red tape inherent in public organizations for poor
information flow to employees. They found that the more red tape associated with information
flow, the poorer the communication and suggested that less formal communication channels
would improve information flow within an organization (Pandy & Garnett, 2006).
Employees also stated that they want more timely information on job task priorities.
Specifically, they want to be notified as soon as possible when a priority tasking ceases to be a
priority for the organization to ensure they are focusing their time and energy most efficiently
when performing their jobs (Factual Knowledge/Understand). To that end, Ting (1997) found
that job characteristics, as opposed to employee characteristics, impact government employees’
job satisfaction and that employee satisfaction and performance primarily depend on employees’
job task clarity. As a result, Ting (1997) suggested that organizations could improve employee
satisfaction through eliminating task uncertainty, providing employees with the necessary
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

80
information about employees’ job tasks, and identifying required courses of action to complete
them.
Based on the research discussed above, Round Hill Park employee satisfaction could
improve if employees began receiving adequate and timely information regarding issues and
concerns affecting the organization and receiving that information through as many effective
channels of communication (newsletters, e-mail, face-to-face) as necessary. While newsletters
and e-mails are convenient information channels for transmitting the same information to many
people (including those geographically separated) and keeping employees informed about a
subject they are already familiar with, they are not optimal for relaying delicate or complicated
information (Markus, 1994). E-mails are impersonal and suffer from time delays (sending,
receiving, responding) while face-to-face communication is more personal, current, makes use of
non-verbal body language, and provides immediate feedback (Daft & Lengel, 1986). In fact, a
study by Cameron and McCollum (1993) found that the preference for communication among
employees at all levels was face-to-face, interpersonal interactions.
One possible solution to employees’ lack of factual knowledge might be for employees to
create a cross-divisional tiger team (a working group of experienced employees comprised of
individuals that are believed to be a fair and accurate representation of Round Hill Park
employees at various levels) that would attend leadership meetings on a regular bases and
represent line employees. This team could also formally request and schedule regular (monthly)
meetings with leadership to brief them on each division’s current and upcoming projects and
employees’ issues or concerns. These meetings would also give employees the opportunity to
clearly state the kind, amount, and method of organizational communication/information they
would prefer. Ultimately, this representative team of employees could ensure employees receive
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

81
timely and accurate information about their organization and jobs through the most effective
channels and employee satisfaction should begin to improve.
Conceptual/Procedural Knowledge
Round Hill Park employees also stated that they do not know how various divisions
factor into the organization’s mission, objectives, and vision (Conceptual Knowledge/Analyze)
and do not know how to communicate with other employees outside their own divisions
(Procedural Knowledge/Understand). Specifically, employees stated that they want information
on what each division in the park does or how they contribute to the overall goals and mission of
the park, and how to get to know the employees working in those other divisions. A recent study
by Jung (2013) actually explored the relationship between clear communication of organizational
goals and employee satisfaction for government employees and found that employees reporting
low employee satisfaction felt that the organization’s mission was not clear. The study
suggested that a solution to low satisfaction ratings for government employees would be to
increase clear and effective communication about the organization’s mission and remove any
barriers that might be preventing employees from attaining the goals.
Anderson and Martin (1995) further found that it is equally important for an organization
to understand the importance of coworker communication and its effect on employee
satisfaction. That is, employees need to communicate with coworkers to satisfy interpersonal
needs (closeness and intimacy) as well as to understand their environment/organization and their
role within that environment, and when coworker communication is insufficient, employees
report feelings of dissatisfaction with superiors, jobs, and organizations (Jablin & Krone, 1994).
Hence, Anderson and Martin (1995) advocate that focusing on facilitating work environments
that encourage and motivate employees to engage in task (group projects) and non-task (social
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

82
activities) oriented communication with coworkers will improve employee satisfaction and
productivity.
Based on the validated conceptual causes presented above and the available research,
clearly communicating to employees the organization’s mission, objectives, and vision and
thoroughly explaining the role of each division in accomplishing each, could begin to improve
employee satisfaction at Round Hill Park. The tiger team could suggest, during their monthly
meeting with leadership, that an all-employee call be schedule to explain the park’s mission and
goals and explain each division’s role in the overall accomplishment of those goals and mission.
Additionally, the team could suggest that employees be shown how to communicate with one
another using guided formal and informal opportunities like cross-flow shadowing, group
projects, and social gatherings. These opportunities could help employees get to know their
coworkers in sister divisions and increase communication among them and, ultimately, help
employees better understand their work environment, feel more connected to the organization,
and improve their job satisfaction.
Solutions for Motivation Causes
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that most researchers agree that three motivational indexes
(active choice, persistence, and mental effort) can be potential problem areas in a work
environment. Analyses of the observation, action plans, and interview data validated that Round
Hill employees’ low satisfaction ratings are partially caused by a motivation problem and
attribution (an individual’s beliefs about the reasons for success or failure and the degree of
control he/she has to affect the outcome) appeared to play a key role in the employees’ low
satisfaction ratings. Specifically, employees indicated that they want to feel that they, their
knowledge, and their experience are valued at Round Hill Park; want to feel empowered to do
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

83
their jobs adequately and efficiently; and want to be more involved in making decisions that
affect the organization and their work. Bandura’s (1997) Social Cognitive theory that focuses on
learning related beliefs and values that impact active choice, persistence, and effort might offer a
solution to these motivational causes. For example, increasing Round Hill Park employees’
latitude to make decisions that would improve efficiencies and adequacies in their jobs and
encouraging employee participation in the park’s decision-making processes could begin to
improve employees’ satisfaction because employees would start to feel more trusted, valued, and
confident in their jobs.
Empowerment
Regarding Round Hill Park employees’ stated desire for empowerment (to take initiative
and respond to dynamic challenges of their job and not simply blindly follow what they are told
to do), Yang and Kassekert (2010) found that an employee’s perception of empowerment affects
employee motivation, attitudes, and job satisfaction. They also discovered that many traditional
hierarchical management structures (such as those found in government agencies) have been
replaced with empowered work teams to improve efficiencies and employee satisfaction (Yang
& Kassekert, 2010). A study by Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, and Wilk (2004) further found
that organizations that facilitated environments that increased employees’ perceptions of
organizational empowerment had long-lasting positive effects on employee satisfaction.
Finally, the literature also supports the plausibility of the final validated motivation cause
for Round Hill Park employees’ low satisfaction ratings (wanting to be more involved with the
park’s decision-making processes). Specifically, public and private sector researchers agree that
including subordinates in workplace decision-making improves employees’ job satisfaction
(Drucker, 1954, 1974; Likert 1967; Daley, 1986; Bernstein, 1993). Locke and Schweiger (1979)
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

84
explain that this includes sharing influence among employees who are otherwise hierarchically
un-equal in the workplace and balances managers’ and employees’ participation in an
organization’s decision-making, problem-solving, and information-processing activities
(Wagner, 1994). Similarly, in a more recent study, Kim (2002) found that government agency
employees are more likely to report higher job satisfaction if employees are allowed to
participate in decisions concerning their work environment. Based on the research above, a
solution to the validated motivation causes of low employee satisfaction at Round Hill Park
could include the aforementioned representative team of employees creating and monitoring an
employee suggestion file to share with leadership during their monthly meetings. This file
would provide employees with a venue to share their professional thoughts with leadership on
what the priorities are and should be in their respective work areas and on how to best
accomplish their job and to provide their expert opinions on decisions being made about their
workplace/job. Ultimately, being given the opportunity to have a voice in the park’s decision-
making processes by sharing their knowledge and experience should make employees feel more
empowered in their jobs and begin improving employee satisfaction at Round Hill Park.
Solutions for Organization Causes
Clark and Estes (2008) described the importance of focusing on an organization’s culture,
operational practices, and governing policies when evaluating causes of performance gaps.
Specifically, they discussed the importance of efficient and effective organizational processes
and resources that support the achievement of goals, the impact of organizational culture on
work processes, and the impact of popular organizational change processes. As mentioned
above, the organization items on the EVS received lower positive ratings than the knowledge or
motivation items and the final validated cause of Round Hill Park employees’ low satisfaction
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

85
ratings is that employees need the resources (equipment, funds, training and manpower) required
to do their jobs properly.
Resources
Employees stated that communication devices (such as phones and computers) needed to
do their jobs safely and effectively are severely lacking and that computer support is intermittent
and severely hampers their ability to do their jobs. Employees also felt that the park’s funds and
human resources are not managed in the best interest of the organization. Specifically,
employees cited incidences where their park’s funds were used to pay for another park’s
requirements, money was spent on moving and maintaining the park’s headquarters building
outside the park, jobs were being terminated in the park (which was already understaffed) while
new positions were being created at the park’s overstaffed headquarters, and fees (not part of the
annual budget) that helped park employees keep programs functioning were terminated. As a
result, employees explained that historical buildings and structures were being neglected and in
danger of irreparable deterioration. Employees also stated that they did not have the training
required to do their collateral duties adequately and safely. It is important to note that the intent
of this discussion is to report what employees believe, which may or may not be based on an
accurate understanding of what actually happened. The gap analysis focuses on people’s
perceptions of events (whether accurate or not) because perceptions are critical to employee
satisfaction (Clark & Estes, 2008).
In such cases, Clark and Estes (2008) recommend organizations look very closely at the
availability of required resources needed for employees to do their jobs adequately when
exploring possible solutions to organizational problems. While it is understood that Round Hill
Park’s resources are limited, it is critical to employee satisfaction that employees have the
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

86
resources needed to safely and adequately perform their jobs. Elmore (2002) argued that
organizations with environments of reciprocal accountability have employees with high
satisfaction. That is, an organization seeking high employee satisfaction ratings should not only
hold employees accountable for job performance, but should also hold itself accountable for
providing employees with adequate resources and training required to perform their jobs
successfully (Elmore, 2002). Clark and Estes (2008) argue that performance specialists often
forget that people provide the knowledge, skill, and motivation that make or break an
organization. Bottom line, a successful organization must continually focus on its people and the
resources they require to do their jobs. As with the knowledge section above, organizations need
to provide employees with clearly stated goals; with constant communication about plans and
progress; with continual involvement of top management; and with the required knowledge,
skills, motivation, and support for all employees (Dixon, 1994).
Clark and Estes (2008) also argue that different types of organizations (team-based,
network, horizontal, pulsating, and skunk works) require different types of support. Round Hill
Park most resembles a pulsating organization because it is set up for seasonal peaks and valleys
and depends to a great extent on short-term positions. The people in pulsating organizations
form strong attachments to short-term employees and short-term employees develop a great
sense of pride in their work (Clark & Estes, 2008). As a result, employees in pulsating
organizations tend to want to hang onto the relationships they have formed with short-term
employees and tend to resist those in the organization who have to terminate short-term
employees, resulting in misplaced anger and low employee satisfaction ratings. These types of
organizations need clear and truthful communication about peoplepower usage as well as clearly
stated goals and mission so all employees understand their organization, understand their
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

87
respective roles in the organization, and are not surprised when short-term employees are
terminated (Clark & Estes, 2008). Based on the research above, one solution for inadequate
resources would be for employees to inventory the resources they have and the resources they
need and advise leadership of any identified needs through the monthly employee representative
team. This way, resources can be reallocated from one division to another, if possible, to ensure
park funds are being used wisely and efficiently. Every effort should be made to determine
whether or not park employees have all the resources required to complete their jobs safely and
adequately and it is critical that, if it is determined that resources are needed, the organization
assumes the responsibility to acquire the needed resources as soon as possible.
Implementation Plan
Solution Integration
The solutions for each of the validated causes for Round Hill Park’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 Round Hill Park leadership begins implementing the proposed solutions to increase
communication, clarify mission and goals, and explain how employees can communicate with
one another, 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 and 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 what each division
does and how that affects the overall mission, and are learning how to communicate with other
divisions, employees’ motivation will be affected because they are beginning to see progress
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

88
from the issues and concerns they highlighted in the EVS and during the discussions sessions
and interviews and will begin to feel more informed.
Additionally, when solutions to the motivation causes are implemented and leadership
begins receiving and considering employees’ input to decisions being made about their
workplace or jobs and employees are feeling empowered to make suggestions about how best to
do their jobs effectively and efficiently, the knowledge and organization causes are also being
addressed because employees are giving and receiving increased communication and information
about the organization and their jobs, and leadership is becoming aware of the resources needed
for park employees to properly do the jobs they were hired to do. Tables 2, 3, and 4 summarize
the knowledge, motivation, and organization causes; solutions; and implementation of the
solutions to aid in closing Round Hill Park’s employee satisfaction ratings. Table 5 summarizes
the goals, timelines, and measures to determine progress. It is important to note that the
solutions indicated in Tables 2, 3, and 4 were derived from action plans created by Round Hill
Park employees during the guided discussion sessions (see Appendix F).

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

89
Table 2
Summary of Knowledge Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the Solutions
Causes Solutions Implementation
Employees do not know enough
(from reliable sources) about
issues/concerns affecting their
workplace and jobs (Factual
Knowledge/ Understand).
Amount and type of
communication is important to
employee satisfaction (White,
Vanc, & Stafford, 2010).
Informal communication w/o
red tape increases employee
satisfaction (Guy, 1992).
Face-to-face communication
from a reliable source is
preferred by most employees
(Cameron & McCollum, 1993;
Markus, 1994).
Tiger team (composed of
employees representing all
divisions and levels) attend
leadership meetings on a regular
basis and schedule regular
(monthly) meetings with
leadership to inform them of
division projects, to increase
reliable information about
organization to employees, and
to inform leadership of the kind
and amount of information they
want to receive about the
organization.
Employees do not know how
various divisions factor into the
organization’s mission,
objectives, and vision
(Conceptual Knowledge/
Analyze).
Increase clear and effective
communication about
organization’s mission and
remove barriers to goal
accomplishment (Jung, 2013).
Explain the organization’s
structure and clearly
communicate the role of each
division (Nadler, Hackman, &
Lawler, 1979; Yukl, 2008).
Tiger team requests an all
employees’ call so leadership
can clearly explain the park’s
mission and goals and how each
division contributes.
Employees do not know how to
communicate effectively with
coworkers in divisions outside
their own (Conceptual
Knowledge/ Understand).
Encourage and provide
opportunities (cross-flow
shadowing, group projects, and
social gatherings) for coworkers
to communicate in and among
divisions to help employees
better understand the
organization and each
employee’s role in the
organization (Jablin & Krone,
1994; Anderson & Martin,
1995).
Tiger team could suggest that
employees be shown how to
communicate with one another
using guided formal and
informal opportunities like
cross-flow shadowing, group
projects, and social gatherings.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

90
Table 3
Summary of Motivation Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the Solutions
Causes Solutions Implementation
Want to feel trusted, valued,
and empowered
(Empowerment).
Employees’ perception that
they are empowered
increases employee
satisfaction and motivation
(Yang & Kassekert, 2010).
Tiger team will create and
monitor an employee suggestion
file to share with leadership
during scheduled meetings. This
file will provide employees with
a venue to share their
professional thoughts with
leadership on what their
priorities are and should be in
their respective work areas, on
how to best accomplish their
jobs, and to provide their expert
opinions on decisions being
made about their workplace/job.
Want to be included in the
park’s decision-making
processes (Empowerment).
Include employees from all
levels of the organization in
decision-making processes
(Locke & Schweiger, 1979).
Employees experience
greater satisfaction if they
are permitted to participate
in an organization’s
decision-making process
(Wagner, 1994; Kim, 2002).

Table 4
Summary of Organization Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the Solutions
Causes Solutions Implementation
Need resources (equipment,
funds, training, and
manpower) to do their jobs
safely and properly
(Resources).
Practice reciprocal
accountability-
organizations hold
employees accountable for
job performance and itself
accountable for required
resources (Elmore, 2002).
Employees will inventory the
resources they have and the
resources they need and the
tiger team will advise leadership
during the monthly meeting of
any equipment, funds, training,
or manpower needs identified.
This will allow leadership to
advocate for additional funds or
reallocate existing funds from
one division to another, to
ensure employees are able to
perform their jobs.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

91
Table 5
Summary of Organization’s Main, Short-Term, Cascading, and Performance Goals
Organizational goal: Improve Round Hill Park employees’ positive ratings by 20 percent on the 2016
EVS. This benchmark goal allows sufficient time to implement interventions to improve employee
satisfaction at Round Hill Park. The measure used to determine the achievement goal was a 20%
increase of the percentage of positive ratings on the knowledge (56%), motivation (53%), and
organization (42%) items contained on the 2012 EVS minus the percentage of positive ratings on the
knowledge (47%), motivation (44%), and organization (35%) items contained on the 2012 EVS. Thus,
the performance gap for the organizational goal is knowledge: 9%, motivation: 9%, and organization:
7%.
Goal 1: Within 30 days,
employees will develop a plan to
improve information flow and
communication channels from
reliable sources to employees.
Goal 2: Employees will devise a
plan to be more pro-active with
making decisions that affect
their jobs or workplaces and to
provide input to the park’s
decision-making processes.
Goal 3: Employees will
inventory resources that are
needed, but are not currently
available, to do their jobs and
devise a plan to inform the
organization.
Cascading Goal 1: Employees
will tell leadership exactly what
information they need and the
channels they need it to come
through to do their jobs.
Cascading Goal 2: Employees
will become more involved in
the organization’s processes
Cascading Goal 3: Organization
will ensure all resources
required for employees to do
their jobs are made available as
soon as possible.
Performance Goal: By April 1,
2014, Round Hill Park
employees will create a tiger
team (consisting of employees
representative of all divisions
and employee levels) that will
request to attend regular
leadership staff meetings and
will schedule and execute
monthly meetings with
leadership to discuss each
division’s current projects and
employees’ issues and concerns.
Measure: Survey.
Performance Goal: Beginning 1
April, 2014, Tiger team will
create and monitor an employee
suggestion file to share with
leadership during monthly
meetings. This file will provide
employees with a venue to share
their professional thoughts with
leadership on what their
priorities are/should be in their
respective work areas, on how to
best accomplish their jobs, and
to provide their expert opinions
on decisions being made about
their workplace/job.
Measure: Employees describe
how they influence decisions
Performance Goal: Beginning 1
April, 2014, employees will
conduct quarterly inventories of
resources they have and
resources they need and
communicate the results of the
inventories to the tiger team who
will discuss with leadership
during their monthly meeting.
Measure: Survey and have
employees describe the process
of identifying and reporting
required resources and the time
required to receive the mission
essential items.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

92
Table 5 (continued)
Performance Goal: By May 1,
2014, the tiger team will
request an all employee call
(rotating times to
accommodate shifts) be
conducting in May so park
leadership can explain the
park’s mission and goals and
the role of each park division
in accomplishing them.
Measure: Survey.
Performance Goal: By May 1,
2014, the tiger team will
discuss exactly what
employees need to feel
empowered to make decisions
that will allow them to do
their jobs adequately and
effectively.
Measure: Observing
employees’ performance and
effect on employs’ workplace
decision-making.
Performance Goal: By May 1,
2014, tiger team will discuss
employees’ ideas on how to
best maintain, stabilize, and
restore park resources during
fiscal restraints before they
decay and are lost forever.
Measure: Employees
description of if/how their
ideas were implemented.
Performance Goal: Beginning
Jun 1, 2014, employees 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: By June 1,
2014, tiger team will invite
headquarters employees to
visit line employees at their
duty stations for one day
annually to see exactly what
is involved in their day-to-day
operations.
Measure: Observing
employees’ participation.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

93
Summary
Chapter 5 examined the possible causes and solutions of an employee satisfaction rating
gap detected from the 2012 EVS results and findings from the guided discussion group
observations, action plan analyses, and telephone interviews. Data analysis designed to capture
knowledge, motivational, and organizational causes for the performance gap validated that
knowledge, motivation, and organization causes were primary contributors to the gap.
Specifically, employees stated that they want to know more about issues and concerns affecting
their workplace or their jobs; want to know how the organization’s various divisions factor into
the park’s mission, objectives, and vision; want to know how to communicate with the other
divisions; want to feel that they, their knowledge, and experience are trusted and valued, want to
be empowered to accomplish their jobs more effectively and efficiently, want to be included in
decision-making processes that affect their job or organization, and want to have adequate
resources (people, materials, training, budget) to do their jobs safely and properly.
Solutions to address these causes and ultimately increase Round Hill Park employees’
satisfaction ratings were proposed and global, cascading, and performance goals were
established to begin closing the gap between the current satisfaction ratings and desired ratings
of Round Hill Park employees. Chapter 6 will conclude this study with a review of Chapters 1
through 5, an evaluation of the study’s results, a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of
the methodology used, and implications for further research.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

94
CHAPTER 6
EVALUATION/RECOMMENDATION
While Chapter 5 focused on exploring and recommending solutions for low employee
satisfaction at Round Hill Park, Chapter 6 will focus on study question three (how might
solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?) and the final step in the gap analysis process,
evaluating the outcomes (impact) of the solutions. Evaluation is a critical step in the gap
analysis process because it provides evidence that the solutions did or did not work to close the
gap being studied (Rueda, 2011). Working within the framework of Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four levels of evaluation model, the impact of the solutions on closing
Round Hill Park’s employee satisfaction gap will be examined. These evaluation levels (detailed
below) will help assess how satisfied or how enthusiastic employees are about implementing the
solutions; whether there have been changes in the knowledge, motivation, or organization areas
that were targeted as causes of the performance gap; whether employees are continuing the
behavior after the intervention has been completed; and whether or not the gap has been closed.
Level 1: Reactions
This evaluation level will help assess how satisfied or how enthusiastic (motivated)
employees are about implementing the suggested solutions and will help determine reactions to
the interventions as they are occurring. To that end, before solutions are implemented,
employees will be asked to complete a survey of questions to determine how enthusiastic they
are about implementing the suggested solutions to close the employee satisfaction gap. This will
help determine employees’ expectations for the intervention and will establish pre-intervention
levels of satisfaction. The survey will also be administered during the intervention so that any
changes that need to be made can be made in time to obtain positive results. Finally, the survey
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

95
will be administered at the end of the intervention (subtracted from the pre-intervention) to
determine any gains in employees’ motivation as a result of the intervention. The survey will
use a Likert-type scale with ratings ranging from very enthusiastic to not enthusiastic. In
addition, a working group will solicit feedback from employees quarterly to determine if
employees continue to be motivated by and value the intervention. Expectations are high that
employees will be very receptive to implementing solutions to the barriers that they identified as
preventing them from being satisfied at work and will like the impact of the interventions.
Level 2: Learning
This level of evaluation will help assess whether there have been changes during the
intervention in the knowledge, motivational, and organizational areas that were targeted as
causes of the performance gap. Knowledge changes will be periodically assessed using a
questionnaire that asks employees if they have the information needed to do their work, if they
have the resources required to do their job, if they understand the park’s mission and goals and
how each division contributes. However, since motivational and organizational changes at this
level are best assessed using direct observation rather than self-reporting (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2006), the measures used to assess motivational and organizational changes will
include supervisors’ direct, periodic observation of changes in employees’ performance or
participation, and direct observation of whether or not employees have the resources required to
do their jobs. It is at this stage that adjustments can be made if progress is not as robust as
expected. It is expected that interventions targeting the knowledge, motivation, and organization
causes of low employee satisfaction proposed in Chapter 5 will increase the satisfaction of
Round Hill Park employees. Specifically, expectations are high that employees’ satisfaction
levels will rise as a result of employees’ increased visibility with leadership through the tiger
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

96
team, increased communication and information flow about the organization and employees’
jobs, increased information regarding the organization’s mission and goals and each divisions
role, employees increased participation in the park’s decision-making processes, and the tiger
team’s ability to highlight employees’ resource needs required to do their jobs.
Level 3: Transfer
This level will help assess whether employees are continuing the behaviors after the
intervention has been completed. That is, are employees using what they have learned and are
they sustaining improvements? Specifically to Round Hill Park employees, are they continuing
to enjoy higher satisfaction levels even after the initial implementation of the solutions? This
level will be assessed using both observation and discussion with employees and supervisors to
determine if the knowledge, motivation, and organization solutions contributed to improved
employee satisfaction and if that satisfaction is continuing over time and/or tasks. It is expected
that increased communication efforts, increased information and knowledge, increased employee
empowerment efforts, increased focus on including employees in the organization’s decision-
making processes, and increased emphasis on ensuring employees have the resources required
to do their jobs will translate into increased employee satisfaction ratings for their jobs and for
other areas of their work environments.
Level 4: Bottom Line Results
This level will help assess whether or not the global goal is closing or is closed. That is,
level four will assess whether or not the gap between Round Hill Park employees’ original
satisfaction ratings and leadership’s desired ratings is closing. Specifically for Round Hill Park
employees, the measure used to determine the achievement goal is a 20% increase (Clark &
Estes, 2008) highlight that 16% is the hurdle rate for resource investment at many global
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

97
corporations) of the percentage of positive ratings on the knowledge (56%), motivation (53%),
and organization (42%) items contained on the 2012 EVS minus the percentage of positive
ratings on the knowledge (47%), motivation (44%), and organization (35%) items contained on
the 2012 EVS. Thus, the performance gap for the organizational goal is knowledge: 9%,
motivation: 9%, and organization: 7%. A working group will administer the survey questions at
the end of the intervention to determine any changes in employee positive ratings. While
solution implementation is expected to immediately begin improving employee satisfaction at
Round Hill Park, completely closing the gap is expected to take time, particularly since the
leadership-style, methods of communication, and levels of employee empowerment appear to be
deeply entrenched at Round Hill. In fact, while interventions are expected to begin closing the
gap within months of implementation, full gap closure could take years.
In summary, the survey used in level one will include both open-ended questions and
likert-type rating items that assess how enthusiastic (motivated) employees are about
implementing the suggested solutions and will be administered before the program starts, during
the intervention, and at the end of the intervention to determine any gains in employees’
motivation as a result of the intervention. The survey will use a Likert-type scale with ratings
ranging from very enthusiastic to not enthusiastic. In addition, a working group will solicit
feedback from employees quarterly to determine if employees continue to be motivated by and
value the intervention. Level 2 will be periodically assessed using a questionnaire that asks
employees if they have the information needed to do their work, if they feel empowered at their
work, if they have the resources required to do their job, and if they understand the park’s
mission and goals and how each division contributes. Level three will also include direct,
periodic observations of changes in employees’ performance or participation, and direct
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

98
observation of whether or not employees have the resources required to do their jobs. Finally, in
level four, a working group will administer the 2012 EVS at the end of the intervention to
measure any changes in employee positive ratings.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The strength of the gap analysis process is that it is a procedural method for helping
organizations achieve goals through identifying and validating knowledge, motivation, and
organization causes preventing goal achievement and identifying solutions that will result in goal
accomplishment. The causes and solutions identified by the gap analysis process are based on
sound scientific research and, according to Clark and Estes (2008), research-based analysis
significantly increases the probability of goal accomplishment. An additional strength of the gap
analysis is the inclusion of an evaluation step that assesses the effectiveness of implemented
solutions. In fact, Clark and Estes (2008) argue that without a valid and reliable system of
evaluating the effects of chosen solutions, organizations are at risk of implementing incorrect
solutions and failing to close performance gaps. Other strengths include the ability to
accomplish goals by making people more effective, to save time and resources improving
performance goals by focusing solutions on validated causes of performance gaps, and to obtain
data that accurately identify solutions that work and do not work to increase the probability of
effectively closing performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Some weaknesses of the gap analysis model include the time that organizations and
employees need to commit to the process. Researching the available literature targeting the
proposed causes, taking the time to identify plausible solutions, implementing solutions,
evaluating the effectiveness of the solutions, and re-attacking when solutions are ineffective can
be overwhelming to potential users (Clark & Estes, 2008). This is particularly true in light of
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

99
limited funding and human resources present in today’s organizations. An additional weakness
is the temptation to save time, money, and effort by skipping steps in the process and attempting
to close a performance gap by using pre-conceived causes and solutions that sound good and
eliminating the crucial evaluation step that determines the success or failure of chosen solutions
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Finally, some organizations might not even attempt to use the gap
analysis process because of the belief that the process is too complicated and time consuming for
the average person to use (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Limitations and Delimitations
There were a few limitations to the current study that need to be addressed. First, since
participants volunteered to participate in the study, the results could not be generalized to other
populations not involved in the study. Additionally, participants who voluntarily took part in the
study could have been doing so to ensure inflated or deflated interview responses. For example,
disgruntled participants could have volunteered to take part in the study because they had
personal agendas to provide more negative or positive responses to interview questions in order
to make specific points. A second limitation was the participants’ interpretation of the questions
being asked. Through a show of hands during the discussion sessions, participants indicated that
“leadership” meant different positions/people to different participants and, therefore, made
findings difficult to interpret. A final limitation involved participants’ reluctance to be truthful in
their responses for fear of punishment from their bosses or of losing their jobs. For example,
several participants expressed concern over the consequences to them if their supervisors found
out what they had to say during the discussion sessions. One employee was so concerned about
reprisal for contributing honest information during the sessions that she spoke to one of the
division chiefs (not in her chain of command) and asked him to speak to the facilitators
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

100
beforehand to see if measures were in place to ensure supervisors would not know who said what
during the discussion sessions. Any of these limitations could have resulted in faulty or
inaccurate information gathered in the interview and, ultimately, could have proved useless in
helping Round Hill leadership remedy their employee satisfaction problem.
It should also be noted that the NPS leadership used a quantitative survey (EVS) to
initially detect Round Hill Park employees’ low satisfaction ratings and while it provided
important information about what Round Hill employees were feeling, it did not provide
information about why they were feeling that way. To that end, this study included qualitative
methods (observing guided discussion groups, analyzing employee action plans, and conducting
phone interviews) to collect data, to explore why Round Hill employees were not satisfied, and
to identify accurate solutions that could close the gap between the employees’ satisfaction ratings
and Round Hill leaderships’ desired ratings.
Qualitative research methods, like those used in the gap analysis, can help researchers
explore the reasons for the results obtained from quantitative studies and are typically less
structured, more exploratory, and more focused on obtaining depth from the data collected
through personal interviews and observations than quantitative methods (Levin, 2003).
However, there are limitations to qualitative research. Specifically, results of qualitative studies
are not typically generalized to other populations, particularly when the participants are
volunteers or samples are small; are time consuming because data are collected via observations
and interviews; are subject to being influenced by the researcher’s bias; and are considered to
have low credibility from some researchers because of these limitations (McEwan & McEwan,
2003).
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

101
To increase the validity of the results in the current study, different data collection
sources (triangulation), member checking to ensure accuracy of the data, rich descriptions of the
findings, and revealing research biases were used (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Also, to
determine reliability (consistency of research approach), a step-by-step documentation of the
procedures used in the current study was recorded, and a strict protocol of checking transcripts
for any obvious errors that might have been made during transcription was followed.
Future Research
Future researchers might consider a random sample of NPS employees to ensure a more
reliable and generalizable result. Also, more clarity on the wording of survey and interview
items might help ensure constructs are understood to mean the same to all participants.
Specifically, better clarification could ensure that the leadership and employee satisfaction
constructs are understood to mean the same to all participants and more specific information
regarding the levels of leadership being referenced are clear enough that participants know
exactly whom they are rating. Also, future researchers should ensure participants are in a safe
environment during the observation and interview process so that there is no fear of reprisal for
their contributions. Ultimately, using a randomized sample of the target population and taking
every precaution to ensure participants respond to survey items and interview questions using the
same frame of reference is critical for the NPS and other organizations not directly involved in
the current study to receive the most accurate information possible to effectively improve
employee satisfaction ratings. Finally, future studies might target Round Hill Park’s leadership
and the knowledge, skills, motivation, and organization gaps preventing them from being
excellent leaders.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

102
Conclusion
The NPS has been administering and tracking the results of the EVS every year since
2002 to identify organizational strengths and improvement needs, and results of the 2012 EVS
revealed low employee satisfaction ratings at many of its parks (USOPM, 2012a). As a result of
these survey results, the NPS leadership conducted guided 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 (USOPM, 2012c).
The purpose of this study was to determine the knowledge, motivation, and organization
causes of and solutions for low employee satisfaction ratings at one NPS park, Round Hill Park,
using the gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2008). The data collected from the EVS, the
observation of employees during the guided discussion sessions, the employee phone interviews,
and the research available on employee satisfaction, identified and validated causes of the gap
between employees’ satisfaction ratings and Round Hill leadership’s desired employee ratings.
Based on those validated causes, solutions were recommended to begin closing Round Hill’s
employee satisfaction gap 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 Round Hill Park were that
employees were not satisfied with communication practices, employee empowerment policies, or
management of required resources for job accomplishment. The solutions identified to increase
Round Hill Park employees’ satisfaction ratings included increasing amount and type of
communication from reliable sources; clearly explaining the park’s mission, goals, and vision to
employees; explaining how the park’s divisions contribute to accomplishing goals and mission;
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

103
demonstrating how employees can communicate with employees outside their division;
empowering employees to make decisions affecting their jobs; increasing employee involvement
in the park’s decision-making processes; and finding out what employees need to do their jobs
and ensuring those items are available. To determine the effectiveness of these solutions on
closing the employee satisfaction gap, working groups should evaluate the results of the
solutions using appropriate assessment tools like interviews, surveys, questionnaires, or direct
observation and adjust where needed until improvement is achieved.
This study found that effective communication, employee empowerment, and adequate
resources are critical ingredients to employee satisfaction and that employee satisfaction is
important to organizations because high employee satisfaction translates into increased
productivity, profitability, retention, and customer satisfaction. Low employee satisfaction is not
a problem unique to the NPS or Round Hill Park. 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 the National Park
Service take action and help other organizations that 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.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

104
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1995). Why employees speak to coworkers and bosses:
Motives, gender, and organizational satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication,
32(3), 249-265.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich,
P. R., Raths, J., & 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. M. (2001). Confirmation and extension of the sources of
feedback scale in service-based organizations. Journal of Business Communication,
38(2), 206-226.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bernstein, A. (1993, January 25). Making teamwork work and appeasing Uncle Sam. Business
Week, 101.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Breaux, D. M., Perrewé, 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.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster, and Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon (Pearson Education Group).
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

105
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of accountability (pp. 1-24).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cameron, G. T., & McCollum, T. (1993). Competing corporate cultures: A multi-method,
cultural analysis of the role of internal communication. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 5(4), 217-250.
Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2012). Self-
efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation, and commitment: Exploring the relationships
between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Psychology
and Education, 27(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.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers’ self efficacy
beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study
at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473-490.
Chang, C. C., Chien, Y., Wu, M., & Yang, F. H. (2011). Elucidating the relationships among
transformational leadership, job satisfaction, commitment foci, and commitment bases in
the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 40(3), 265.
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.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

106
Crino, M. E., & White, M. C. (1981). Satisfaction in communication: An examination of the
Downs-Hazen measure. Psychological Reports, 49(3), 831-838.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness
and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
Daley, D. M. (1986). Humanistic management and organizational success: The effect of job and
work environment characteristics on organizational effectiveness, public responsiveness,
and job satisfaction. Public Personnel Management, 15(2), 131-42.
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.
Dixon, J. R. (1994). Business process reengineering: Improving in new strategic directions.
California Management Review, 36(4), 93-108.
Drucker, P. (1954). The practice of management. New York: Harper and Row.
Drucker, P. (1974). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York: Harper and Row.
Durst, S., & DeSantis, V. (1997). The determinants of job satisfaction among federal, state, and
local government employees. State & Local Government Review, 29(1), 7-16.
Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2005). HRM practice and employee attitudes: Different measures -
different results. Personnel Review, 34(5), 534-549.
Ellickson, M. C., & Logsdon, K. (2002). Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal
government employees. Public Personnel Management, 31(3), 343-358.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

107
Elmore, R. E. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Washington, D.C.: Albert Shanker Institute.
Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2012). Principal self-efficacy: Relations with burnout, job
satisfaction, and motivation to quit. Social Psychology Education, 15(3), 295-320.
Fernandez, S. (2008). Examining the effects of leadership behavior on employee perceptions of
performance and job satisfaction. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(2),
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.
Fix, B., & Sias, P. M. (2006). Person-centered communication, leader-member exchange, and
employee job satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 23(1), 35-44.
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.
Goris, J. R. (2007). Effects of satisfaction with communication on the relationship between
individual-job congruence and job performance/satisfaction. Journal of Management
Development, 25(8), 737-752.
Guy, M. E. (1992). Productive work environments. In M. Holzer (Ed.), The public productivity
handbook (pp. 321-33). New York: Marcel Dekker.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

108
Hargie, O., Tourish, D., & Wilson, N. (2002). Communication audits and the effects of increased
information: A follow-up study. Journal of Business Communication, 39(4), 414-436.
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-
analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(2), 305-325.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. USC Urban Ed.
Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education.
Howell, J. P., & Costley, D. L. (2006). Understanding behaviors for effective leadership (2nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Jablin, F. M., & Krone, I. J. (1994). Task/work relationships: A life span perspective. In M. I.
Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 621-675).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jo, S., & Shim, S. W. (2005). Paradigm shifts of employee communication: The effect of
management communication on trusting relationships. Public Relations Review, 31(2),
277-280.
Johlke, M. C., & Duhan, D. F. (2000). Supervisor communication practices and service
employee job outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 154-165.
Judge, T. A. (1993). Does affective disposition moderate the relationship between job
satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 395-401.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits — self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability — with job satisfaction
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

109
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction - job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin,
127(3), 376-407.
Jung, C. S. (2013). Organizational goal ambiguity and job satisfaction in the public sector.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mut020
Jung, D. L., & 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.
Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management
leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231-241.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
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. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York:
Free Press.
Lam, C. S., & O’Higgins, E. R. E. (2012). Enhancing employee outcomes: The interrelated
influences of managers’ emotional intelligence and leadership style. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 33(2), 149-174.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

110
Laschinger, H. K., Finegan, J. E., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2004). A longitudinal analysis of the
impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25(4), 527-545.
Lavigna, B. (2012). Commentary on pulling the levers: Transformational leadership, public
service motivation, and mission valence. Public Administration Review, 72(2), 216-217.
Levin, H. M. (2003). Foreword. In E. K. McEwan & P. J. McEwan, Making sense of research:
What’s good, what’s not, and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Locke, E. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision-making: One more look. In
B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational Behavior I (pp. 265-339). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
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(1), 61-78.
Markus, M. L. (1994). Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organization
Science, 5(4), 502-524.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

111
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.
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
Occuptional and Organizational Psychology, 69(3), 277-292.
Nadler, D. A., Hackman, R. J., & Lawler, E. E. (1979). Managing organizational behavior.
Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
National Park Service. (2012). New employee orientation program. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Retrieved from
http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/neo.htm
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(9), 1236-1244.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pandey, S. K., & Garnett, J. L. (2006). Exploring public sector performance: Testing a model
and drawing implications. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 37-51.
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.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

112
Pincus, J. D. (2006). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human
Communication Research, 12(3), 395-419.
Porter, H., Wrench, J. S., & Hoskinson, C. (2007). The influence of supervisor temperament on
subordinate job satisfaction and perceptions of supervisor socio-communicative
orientation and approachability. Communication Quarterly, 55(1), 129-153.
Putti, J. M., Aryee, S., & Phua, J. (1990). Communication relationship satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Group & Organization Studies, 15(1), 44-52.
Rueda, R. (2011). The three dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York: Teachers College Press.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2009). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Shaw, K. (2005). Getting leaders involved in communication strategy: Breaking down the
barriers to effective leadership communication. Strategic Communication Management,
9, 14-17.
Swiss, J. E. (2005). A framework for assessing incentives in results-based management. Public
Administration Review, 65(5), 592-602.
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.
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.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

113
Thoms, R., Dose, J. J., & Scott, K. S. (2002). Relationships between accountability, job
satisfaction, and trust. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(3), 307-323.
Ting, Y. (1997). Determinants of job satisfaction of federal government employees. Public
Personnel Management, 26(3), 313.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2012a). 2012 EVS users guide for NPS. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Office of Learning and
Development.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2012b). 2012 Federal employee viewpoint survey.
Retrieved from http://www.fedview.opm.gov/2012/
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2012c). 2012 Federal employee viewpoint survey:
Understanding the results. Retrieved from http://www.fedview.opm.gov/2012/Results/
Wagner, J. A., III. (1994). Participation’s effect on performance and satisfaction: A
reconsideration of research evidence. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 312-30.
Wang, X. H. F., & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational
leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1134-1144.
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.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

114
White, C., Vanc, A., & Stafford, G. (2010). Internal communication, information satisfaction,
and sense of community: The effect of personal influence. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 22(1), 65-84.
Winston, B. E., & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership. International
Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6-66.
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.
Yang, K., & Kassekert, A. (2010). 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. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly,
19(6), 708-722.
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.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

115
APPENDIX A
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION VARIABLES MAPPED TO CLARK AND ESTES’S GAP
ANALYSIS
Table A1
Communication Mapped to Clark and Estes’s Gap Analysis
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Andrews and
Kacmar (2001)
Performance feedback
from supervisors/ leaders
is critical.
Clampitt and
Downs (1993)
Performance feedback
from supervisors/ leaders
is critical.
Hargie, Tourish,
and Wilson (2002)
Face-to-face communication.
Increased information flow.
Building trust.

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

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

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

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

116
Table A1, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Porter, Wrench, and
Hoskinson (2007)
Supervisors that are introverted and
highly neurotic may need training to
improve interpersonal
communication skills.
Supervisors that are
introverted and highly
neurotic dissuade
employees to approach
them and ask for
feedback and guidance
when necessary.
Potential supervisors
with approachable and
extraverted
temperaments should be
promoted to positions of
leadership.
Shaw (2005) Communicator competence: share
and respond to information in a
timely manner, actively listen to all
points of view, communicate clearly
and concisely across the
organization and utilize various
communication channels.

Miles, Patrick, and
King (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.
Pincus (2006) Supervisor
communication
(supervisor openness to
listen to employee
problems),
communication climate
(response to
communication
environment), and
personal feedback (how
performance is judged).
Thomas, Zolin and
Hartman (2009)
Quality of information from
supervisors: timely, accurate and
relevant information increases trust.

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

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

117
Table A2
Efficacy Mapped to Clark and Estes’s Gap Analysis
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Buckingham and
Coffman (1999)

Measures the strength of workplace. Attract, focus, &
keep most talented employees.

Mayer (2011)

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

Canrinus, Helms-
Lorenz, Beijaard,
Buitink, and
Hofman (2012).

Feelings toward colleagues, perceived support from
colleagues and leadership, and perceived competency in
dealing with workplace demands affects job
satisfaction.

Caprara,
Barbaranelli,
Borgogni, and Steca
(2003).

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

Caprara,
Barbaranelli, Steca,
and Malone (2006).

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

Federici and
Skaalvik (2012).

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

Gardner and Pierce
(1998).

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

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

118
Table A2, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Judge and Bono
(2001).

An employee’s generalized self-efficacy (belief in their
ability to perform and be successful), self-esteem (value
they place on themselves as a person), internal locus of
control (their belief that they can control a variety of
factors in their lives), and emotional stability (confidence
and security) significantly predict job performance and
satisfaction.

Klassen and Chiu
(2010).

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

Klassen, Usher,
and Bong (2010).

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

Luthans, Zhu, and
Avolio (2005).

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

Nielsen, Yarker,
Randall, and Munir
(2009).

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

Zellars,
Hochwarter,
Perrewe, Miles,
and Kiewitz
(2001).

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

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

119
Table A3
Accountability Mapped to Clark and Estes’s Gap Analysis
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Breaux, Perrewé,
Hall, Frink, and
Hochwarter (2008);
Ellickson and
Logsdon (2002);
Kim (2002);
McKnight, Ahmad,
and Schroeder
(2001)
Accountability coupled with abusive
leadership behavior (verbal and non-
verbal hostility towards employees by a
direct supervisor) is negatively
associated with employee satisfaction,
whereas when coupled with a close,
participative relationship between
supervisor and employee leads to higher
employee satisfaction.
DeSantis and Durst
(1996)
The degree to which
employee talents are
utilized impacts
employee satisfaction.

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

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

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

Ellickson and
Logsdon (2002);
Swiss (2005); Yang
and 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.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

120
Table A3, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Fernandez and
Moldogaziev
(2011)
Clarity of goals and expectations
impact both employee satisfaction
and performance.
Fernandez and
Moldagaziev
(2011)
Attending to recognizing employee
performance levels and
achievements contributes to
employee satisfaction and
performance.
Fernandez and
Moldagaziev
(2011);
McKnight, Ahmad
and Schroeder
(2001)
The degree of timely and
accurate feedback about
performance impacts
employee satisfaction
and performance.

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

Thoms, Dose, and
Scott (2002)
Lack of trust when
combined with
accountability measures
results in lower
employee satisfaction,
whereas trust in one’s
supervisor and perceived
supervisor awareness
and accountability
resulted in higher
employee satisfaction.

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

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

121
Table A4
Leadership Literature Aligned to Clark and Estes’s Gap Analysis
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

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

122
Table A4, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Lam and O’Higgins
(2012).
Managers who are able to demonstrate
that they understand and can manage
their employees’ and their own
emotions reflect a transformational
leadership style that enhance their
employees’ feelings of job satisfaction.

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

Northouse (2010, p.
200)
Leaders who are good role models
facilitate positive change, create and
articulate a clear vision, empower
others to meet high standards, inspire
trust, and give meaning to
organizational life.

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

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

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

123
Table A5
Assumed Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Causes of Employee Satisfaction to be
Validated
Categories Knowledge Motivation Organization
Communication Need more information
about the organization
and/or jobs that is timely,
reliable, and delivered
through the most effective
methods
Need more communication
upward without fear of
reprisal, more exposure to
employees in other
departments within the
organization, more
opportunity to contribute
information to facilitate
decision-making and
problem-solving processes in
the organization
Efficacy Need more confidence in
ability to do jobs adequately,
more moral support (perceived
or actual) from colleagues and
leadership, more recognition
for job well done, and more
feeling of importance to the
organization to boost
confidence in value to
organization

Accountability Need more information
that is accurate, honest, and
facilitates trust in the
organization
Need more realistic timelines
to complete tasks, more relief
from excessive workloads
when under-staffed, more pay
for increased work and
responsibilities, and more
opportunity to feel connected
to organization’s mission and
goals
Need more reciprocal
accountability (employees
and leadership accountable to
one another), more clearly
stated organization goals
Leadership Need more exposure to
leadership (casually and
professionally) with good
communication skills
More exposure to leadership
that encourages (empowers)
employees to develop their full
personal and professional
potential and that stresses
group goal pursuit and shared
beliefs and values
More flexibility within the
organization and from
leadership for employees to
adjust work processes to gain
efficiencies

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

124
APPENDIX B
SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF THE 2012 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FEDERAL
EMPLOYEE VIEWPOINT SURVEY FOR ROUND HILL PARK
Score Index
38% Best Places to Work Index
63% Employee Skills/Mission Match Index
46% Teamwork Index
41% Pay and Benefits Index
37% Work/Life Balance Index
33% Training/Development Index
43% Support for Diversity Index
28% Strategic Management Index
21% Effective Leadership - Leader Index
43% Effective Leadership - Supervisor Index
19% Effective Leadership - Empowerment Index
28% Effective Leadership - Fairness Index
25% Performance-based Rewards & Advancement Index
61% Family Friendly Culture Index

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Lowest Park/Office Score
Median Park/Office Score
Round Hill Park/Office Score
Highest Park/Office Score
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

125
Category Results for Round Hill Park (RH)
Best Places to Work Category RH NPS
Q# Category Score 38% 63%
40 I recommend my organization as a good place to work. 41% 67%
69 Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job? 46% 66%
71 Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization? 28% 57%

Employee Skills/Mission Match Category RH NPS
Q# Category Score 63% 79%
4 My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment. 51% 75%
5 I like the kind of work I do. 78% 87%
11 My talents are used well in the workplace. 32% 57%
12 I know how my work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities. 68% 83%
13 The work I do is important. 86% 92%

Teamwork Category RH NPS
Q# Category Score 46% 61%
20 The people I work with cooperate to get the job done. 54% 70%
26 Employees in my work unit share job knowledge with each other. 57% 69%
58 Managers promote communication among different work units. 27% 46%

Pay and Benefits Category RH NPS
Q# Category Score 41% 58%
70 Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay? 41% 58%

Work/Life Balance Category RH NPS
Q# Category Score 37% 51%
9 I have sufficient resources to get my job done. 19% 31%
10 My workload is reasonable. 30% 43%
42 My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues. 62% 77%

Training/Development Category RH NPS
Q# Category Score 33% 51%
1 I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization. 35% 59%
2 I have enough information to do my job well. 46% 65%
18 My training needs are assessed. 22% 38%
68 How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your present
job?
30% 44%

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

126
Support for Diversity Category RH NPS
Q# Category Score 43% 58%
34 Policies and programs promote diversity in the workplace. 51% 51%
45 My supervisor/team leader is committed to a workforce representative
of all segments of society.
50% 64%
55 Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with employees of
different backgrounds.
27% 58%

Strategic Management Category RH NPS
Q# Category Score 28% 52%
21 My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills. 14% 40%
27 The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year. 16% 50%
29 The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to
accomplish organizational goals.
51% 67%
57 Managers review and evaluate the organization’s progress toward
meeting its goals and objectives.
29% 50%

Effective Leadership - Leader Category RH NPS
Q# Category Score 21% 46%
53 In my organization, leaders generate high levels of motivation and
commitment in the workforce.
11% 38%
54 My organization’s leaders maintain high standards of honesty and
integrity.
17% 52%
61 I have a high level of respect for my organization’s senior leaders. 24% 48%
64 How satisfied are you with the information you receive from
management on what’s going on in your organization?
30% 44%

Effective Leadership - Supervisor Category RH NPS
Q# Category Score 43% 63%
43 My supervisor/team leader provides me with opportunities to
demonstrate my leadership skills.
46% 67%
44 Discussions with my supervisor/team leader about my performance
are worthwhile.
41% 59%
47 Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit support employee
development.
41% 61%
52 Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your immediate
supervisor/team leader?
43% 65%

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

127
Effective Leadership - Empowerment Category RH NPS
Q# Category Score 19% 46%
30 Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to
work processes.
16% 41%
63 How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect
your work?
22% 50%

Effective Leadership - Fairness Category RH NPS
Q# Category Score 28% 53%
17 I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation
without fear of reprisal.
29% 55%
37 Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and coercion for partisan
political purposes are not tolerated.
26% 50%

Performance-Based Rewards & Advancement Category RH NPS
Q# Category Score 25% 43%
15 My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance. 51% 66%
22 Promotions in my work unit are based on merit. 8% 32%
31 Employees are recognized for providing high quality products and
services.
30% 46%
32 Creativity and innovation are rewarded. 30% 36%
65 How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a
good job?
19% 46%
67 How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in
your organization?
14% 32%

Family Friendly Culture Category* RH NPS
Q# Category Score 61% 76%
79 Satisfaction with telework. 45% 68%
80 Satisfaction with Alternative Work Schedules (AWS). 54% 87%
81 Satisfaction with Health and Wellness Programs. 70% 73%
82 Satisfaction with Employee Assistance Program (EAP). 80% 77%
83 Satisfaction with child care programs. ---- 55%
84 Satisfaction with elder care programs. ---- 52%

*NOTE: Items in this category were answered only by people who said they participated in these
programs.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

128
Results of the 2012 NPS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey for Round Hill Park (RH)

The 2012 NPS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Report provides summary results for your
organization. The results include Positive, Neutral, and Negative response percentages for each
survey item.

For each of the three response scales used in the survey, two responses were categorized as
“Positive” (Strongly Agree and Agree, Very Satisfied and Satisfied, Very Good and Good), one
response as “Neutral” (Neither Agree nor Disagree, Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied, Fair), two
responses as “Negative”(Disagree and Strongly Disagree, Dissatisfied and Very Dissatisfied,
Poor and Very Poor), and one response as “DNK” or “NBJ” (Do Not Know or No Basis to
Judge).

Note: Respondents counted in the DNK/NBJ column are not included in the calculation of the
Positive, Neutral and Negative percents.

My Work Experience
1. I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization.
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 59.1% 17.2% 23.7%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 35.1% 13.5% 51.4%

2. I have enough information to do my job well.
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 64.8% 16.9% 18.3%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 45.9% 8.1% 45.9%

3. I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things.
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 58.8% 17.5% 23.8%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 31.4% 17.1% 51.4%

4. My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment.
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 74.6% 12.8% 12.6%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 51.4% 10.8% 37.8%

5. I like the kind of work I do.
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 86.9% 8.7% 4.3%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 78.4% 5.4% 16.2%

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

129
6. I know what is expected of me on the job.
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 75.0% 13.1% 11.9%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 64.9% 5.4% 29.7%

7. When needed I am willing to put in the extra effort to get a job done.
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 96.8% 1.9% 1.3%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 86.5% 5.4% 8.1%

8. I am constantly looking for ways to do my job better.
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 92.2% 6.8% 1.1%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 83.8% 13.5% 2.7%

9. I have sufficient resources (for example, people, materials, budget) to get my job done.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
31.3% 16.1% 52.6% 11
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
18.9% 5.4% 75.7% -

10. My workload is reasonable.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
43.3% 18.3% 38.4% 4
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
29.7% 13.5% 56.8% -

11. My talents are used well in the workplace.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
57.2% 16.4% 26.4% 24
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
32.4% 21.6% 45.9% -

12. I know how my work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
82.6% 10.3% 7.0% 21
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
67.6% 5.4% 27.0% -
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

130
13. The work I do is important.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
91.9% 5.8% 2.3% 11
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
86.5% 5.4% 8.1% -

14. Physical conditions (for example, noise level, temperature, lighting, cleanliness in the
workplace) allow employees to perform their jobs well.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
65.5% 16.4% 18.1% 22
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
43.2% 13.5% 43.2% -

15. My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
65.7% 16.1% 18.2% 102
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
51.4% 10.8% 37.8% -

16. I am held accountable for achieving results.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
80.1% 13.3% 6.5% 39
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
54.1% 27.0% 18.9% -

17. I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
55.1% 19.9% 25.0% 245
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
29.4% 11.8% 58.8% 3

18. My training needs are assessed.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
38.1% 24.3% 37.6% 74
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
21.6% 8.1% 70.3% -

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

131
19. In my most recent performance appraisal, I understood what I had to do to be rated at
different performance levels (for example, Fully Successful, Outstanding).
Positive Neutral Negative NBJ
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
65.5% 15.1% 19.5% 153
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
48.6% 16.2% 35.1% -

My Work Unit
20. The people I work with cooperate to get the job done.
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 69.6% 15.2% 15.2%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 54.1% 21.6% 24.3%

21. My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
40.0% 25.2% 34.8% 116
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
13.9% 19.4% 66.7% 1

22. Promotions in my work unit are based on merit.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
31.7% 29.6% 38.7% 398
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
8.1% 24.3% 67.6% -

23. In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not
improve.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
27.5% 26.0% 46.5% 390
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
14.3% 11.4% 74.3% 2

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

132
24. In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
30.9% 28.6% 40.6% 310
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
8.6% 17.1% 74.3% 1

25. Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
42.5% 23.5% 34.0% 351
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
26.5% 11.8% 61.8% 3

26. Employees in my work unit share job knowledge with each other.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
69.1% 15.5% 15.3% 41
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
56.8% 18.9% 24.3% -

27. The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
50.3% 30.1% 19.7% 182
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
16.2% 40.5% 43.2% -

28. How would you rate the overall quality of work done by your work unit?
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 81.4% 14.5% 4.0%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 64.9% 16.2% 18.9%

My Agency
29. The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish
organizational goals.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
67.0% 19.2% 13.8% 92
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
51.4% 13.5% 35.1% -
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

133
30. Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work processes.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
41.1% 25.6% 33.2% 124
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
16.2% 21.6% 62.2% -

31. Employees are recognized for providing high quality products and services.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
45.7% 24.0% 30.3% 99
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
29.7% 10.8% 59.5% -

32. Creativity and innovation are rewarded.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
36.3% 29.2% 34.5% 163
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
29.7% 8.1% 62.2% -

33. Pay raises depend on how well employees perform their jobs.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
14.6% 27.9% 57.5% 416
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
8.3% 13.9% 77.8% -

34. Policies and programs promote diversity in the workplace (for example, recruiting
minorities and women, training in awareness of diversity issues, mentoring).
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
50.5% 29.2% 20.4% 325
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
51.4% 18.9% 29.7% -

35. Employees are protected from health and safety hazards on the job.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
74.6% 14.6% 10.8% 47
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
67.6% 10.8% 21.6% -

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

134
36. My organization has prepared employees for potential security threats.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
55.0% 25.1% 19.8% 172
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
42.9% 25.7% 31.4% 1

37. Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and coercion for partisan political purposes are not
tolerated.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
50.4% 22.4% 27.2% 346
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
26.5% 32.4% 41.2% 3

38. Prohibited Personnel Practices (for example, illegally discriminating for or against any
employee/applicant, obstructing a person’s right to compete for employment, knowingly
violating veterans’ preference requirements) are not tolerated.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
65.5% 18.2% 16.3% 450
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
52.8% 8.3% 38.9% 1

39. My agency is successful at accomplishing its mission.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
70.3% 19.6% 10.1% 80
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
41.7% 27.8% 30.6% 1

40. I recommend my organization as a good place to work.
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 67.1% 18.6% 14.3%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 40.5% 16.2% 43.2%

41. I believe the results of this survey will be used to make my agency a better place to work.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
37.0% 30.8% 32.2% 678
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
22.6% 25.8% 51.6% 6

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

135
My Supervisor/Team Leader
42. My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
77.1% 10.9% 12.0% 32
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
62.2% 10.8% 27% -

43. My supervisor/team leader provides me with opportunities to demonstrate my leadership
skills.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
67.0% 15.2% 17.8% 20
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
45.9% 8.1% 45.9% -

44. Discussions with my supervisor/team leader about my performance are worthwhile.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
59.2% 20.0% 20.9% 61
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
40.5% 16.2% 43.2% -

45. My supervisor/team leader is committed to a workforce representative of all segments of
society.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
63.6% 24.8% 11.6% 475
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
50.0% 27.8% 22.2% 1

46. My supervisor/team leader provides me with constructive suggestions to improve my job
performance.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
56.1% 22.2% 21.6% 33
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
27.0% 32.4% 40.5% -

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

136
47. Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit support employee development.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
61.0% 19.6% 19.3% 60
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
40.5% 16.2% 43.2% -

48. My supervisor/team leader listens to what I have to say.
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 74.4% 12.0% 13.0%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 51.4% 18.9% 29.7%

49. My supervisor/team leader treats me with respect.
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 77.4% 11.2% 11.4%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 67.6% 5.4% 27.0%

50. In the last six months, my supervisor/team leader has talked with me about my
performance.
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 76.7% 9.5% 13.8%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 62.2% 5.4% 32.4%

51. I have trust and confidence in my supervisor.
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 63.2% 16.9% 19.9%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 41.7% 13.9% 44.4%

52. Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your immediate supervisor/team
leader?
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 64.6% 20.0% 15.3%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 43.2% 18.9% 37.8%

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

137
Leadership
53. In my organization, leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the
workforce.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
38.3% 26.4% 35.3% 56
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
10.8% 21.6% 67.6% -

54. My organization’s leaders maintain high standards of honesty and integrity.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
52.1% 23.1% 24.8% 186
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
17.1% 25.7% 57.1% 2

55. Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with employees of different backgrounds.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
58.4% 24.2% 17.3% 332
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
27.0% 27.0% 45.9% -

56. Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
52.8% 22.2% 25.0% 58
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
29.7% 18.9% 51.4% -

57. Managers review and evaluate the organization’s progress toward meeting its goals and
objectives.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
49.6% 27.1% 23.3% 383
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
29.4% 26.5% 44.1% 2

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

138
58. Managers promote communication among different work units (for example, about
projects, goals, needed resources).
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
45.5% 22.3% 32.2% 115
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
27.0% 13.5% 59.5% -

59. Managers support collaboration across work units to accomplish work objectives.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
51.1% 21.9% 27.0% 143
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
32.4% 17.6% 50.0% 2

60. Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by the manager directly above your
immediate supervisor/team leader?
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
52.9% 25.3% 21.8% 334
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
24.3% 18.9% 56.8% -

61. I have a high level of respect for my organization’s senior leaders.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
48.1% 25.4% 26.5% 63
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
24.3% 24.3% 51.4% -

62. Senior leaders demonstrate support for Work/Life programs.
Positive Neutral Negative DNK
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
48.3% 29.1% 22.5% 705
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
20.6% 26.5% 52.9% 3

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

139
My Satisfaction
63. How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect your work?
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 50.0% 22.3% 27.6%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 21.6% 18.9% 59.5%

64. How satisfied are you with the information you receive from management on what’s going
on in your organization?
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 43.5% 23.8% 32.8%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 29.7% 27.0% 43.2%

65. How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a good job?
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 46.1% 24.2% 29.7%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 18.9% 18.9% 62.2%

66. How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders?
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 38.3% 29.7% 32.0%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 16.2% 21.6% 62.2%

67. How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in your organization?
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 32.2% 29.5% 38.3%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 13.5% 21.3% 62.2%

68. How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your present job?
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 43.8% 25.4% 30.9%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 29.7% 21.6% 48.6%

69. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 65.9% 18.1% 16.0%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 45.9% 16.2% 37.8%

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

140
70. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 58.0% 18.3% 23.7%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 40.5% 21.6% 37.8%

71. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization?
Positive Neutral Negative
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 57.2% 21.8% 21.0%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 27.8% 19.4% 52.8%

72. Have you been notified that you are eligible to telework? Telework means working at a
location other than your normal work site during your regular work hours (excludes travel).
Yes No Not Sure
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 38.0% 55.0% 7.0%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 43.2% 56.8% 0.0%

73. Please select the response below that BEST describes your teleworking situation.
NPS RH
I telework 3 or more days per week. 1.7% NA
I telework 1 or 2 workdays per week. 5.7% NA
I telework, but no more than 1 or 2 days per month. 3.7% NA
I telework very infrequently, on an unscheduled or short-term basis. 15.3% NA
I do NOT telework because I have to be physically present on the job. 38.7% NA
I do NOT telework because I have technical issues. 4.2% NA
I do NOT telework because I did not receive approval to do so. 17.0% NA
I do NOT telework because I choose not to telework. 13.8% NA

74. Do you participate in Alternative work schedules (AWS)?
Yes No Not Avail
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 42.5% 38.3% 19.2%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 35.1% 24.3% 40.5%

75. Do you participate in Health and Wellness Programs (for example, exercise, medical
screening, quit smoking programs)?
Yes No Not Avail
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 25.4% 52.5% 22.0%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 27.0% 32.4% 40.5%

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

141
76. Do you participate in the Employee Assistance Program (EAP)?
Yes No Not Avail
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 22.7% 75.1% 2.2%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 27.0% 70.3% 2.7%

77. Do you participate in Child care programs (for example, daycare, parenting classes,
parenting support groups)?
Yes No Not Avail
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 1.4% 73.0% 25.6%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 2.7% 45.9% 51.4%

78. Do you participate in Elder care programs (for example, support groups, speakers)?
Yes No Not Avail
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are weighted) 0.9% 73.5% 25.5%
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are UNweighted) 0.0% 52.8% 47.2%

Work/Life
79. How satisfied are you with the Telework program in your agency?*
Positive Neutral Negative NBJ
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
68.1% 21.3% 10.6% 141
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
45.5% 18.2% 36.4% -
* Results for this item only include employees who indicated that they participated in the
Telework program on item #73.

80. How satisfied are you with the Alternative Work Schedules (AWS) program in your
agency?*
Positive Neutral Negative NBJ
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
86.5% 9.7% 3.8% 40
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
53.8% 30.8% 15.4% -
* Results for this item only include employees who indicated that they participated in the
Alternative Work Schedules program on item #74.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

142
81. How satisfied are you with the Health and Wellness Programs (for example, exercise,
medical screening, quit smoking programs) in your agency?*
Positive Neutral Negative NBJ
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
72.6% 20.4% 7.0% 90
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
70.0% 30.0% 0.0% -
* Results for this item only include employees who indicated that they participated in Health and
Wellness Programs on item #75.

82. How satisfied are you with the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in your agency?*
Positive Neutral Negative NBJ
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
76.9% 18.3% 4.8% 105
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
80.0% 20.0% 0.0% -
* Results for this item only include employees who indicated that they participated in the
Employee Assistance Program on item #76.

83. How satisfied are you with the Child Care Programs (for example, daycare, parenting
classes, parenting support groups) in your agency?*
Positive Neutral Negative NBJ
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
55.1% 36.7% 8.2% 40
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
- - - -
* Results for this item only include employees who indicated that they participated in Child Care
Programs on item #77.

84. How satisfied are you with the Elder Care Programs (for example, support groups,
speakers) in your agency?*
Positive Neutral Negative NBJ
National Park Service 2012 (percentages are
weighted)
51.7% 41.6% 6.8% 41
Round Hill Park 2012 (percentages are
UNweighted)
- - - 1
* Results for this item only include employees who indicated they participate in Elder Care
Programs on item #78.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

143
APPENDIX C
EMPLOYEE VIEWPOINT SURVEY (EVS) MAPPED TO CLARK AND ESTES’S GAP
ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
Table C1
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization EVS Items Mapped to Clark and Estes’s Gap Analysis
Framework (Percentage of Round Hill Park Positive Responses)
Knowledge Motivation Organization
Employees have enough
information to do their job
well (35.1%).
Employees know what is
expected of them on the job
(64.9%).
Employees know how their
work relates to the agency’s
goals and priorities (67.6%).
In employees’ most recent
performnce appraisal,
employees undertand what
they had to do to be rated at
different performance levels
(48.6%).
Employee’s agency is
successful at accomplishing
its mission (41.7%).
Employees are satisfied with
the information they receive
from management on what’s
going on in their organization
(29.7).
Employees are satisfied with
the training they receive for
their present job (29.7%).
Employees’ work gives them
a feeling of personal
accomplishment (51.4%).
Employees like the kind of
work they do (78.4%).
When needed, employees are
willing to put in the extra
effort to get the job done
(86.5%).
Employees are constantly
looking for ways to do their
job better (83.8%).
The work employees do is
important (86.5%).
Employees fear reprisal if
they disclose a suspected
violation of any law, rule, or
regulation (29.4%).
Employees feel that the
overall quality of work done
by their work unit is good
(64.9%).
Employees have a feeling of
personal empowerment with
respect to work processes
(16.2%).
Employees are given a real
opportunity to improve their
skills in the organization
(35.1%).
Employees do feel
encouraged to come up with
new and better ways of doing
things (31.4%).
Employees have sufficient
resources (for example,
people, materials, budget) to
get their job done (18.9%).
Employees’ workload is
reasonable (29.7%).
Employees’ talents are used
well in the workplace
(32.4%).
Physical conditions (noise
level, temperature, lighting
cleanliness) allow employees
to perform their jobs well
(43.2%).
Employees’ performance
appraisal is a fair reflection of
their performance (51.4%).
Employees are held
accountable for achieving
results (54.1%).

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

144
Table C1, continued
Knowledge Motivation Organization
I recommend my organization
as a good place to work
(40.5%).
Employees feel that the
manager directly above their
immediate supervisor/team
leader is doing a good job
(24.3%).
Employees have a high level
of respect for their
organization’s senior leaders
(24.3%).
Employees are satisfied with
their involvement in decisions
that affect their work
(21.6%).
Employees are satisfied with
the recognition they receive
for doing a good job (18.9%).
Employees are satisfied with
their opportunity to get a
better job in their
organization (13.5%).
Considering everything,
employees are satisfied with
their job (45.9%).
Considering everything,
employees are satisfied with
their pay (40.5%).
Considering everything,
employees are satisfied with
their organization (27.8%).
Employees’ training needs
are assessed (21.6%).
Employees’ coworkers
cooperate to get the job done
(54.1%).
Employees’ work unit is able
to recruit people with the
right skills (13.9%).
Promotions in the work unit
are based on merit (8.1%).
In the work unit, steps are
taken to deal with poor
performers who cannot or
will not improve (14.3%).
In the work unit, differences
in performance are
recognized in a meaningful
way (8.6%).
Awards in the work unit
depend on how well
employees perform their jobs
(26.5%).
Employees in the work unit
share job knoledge with each
other (56.8%).
The skill level in the work
unit has improved in the past
year (16.2%).
The workforce has the job
relevant knowledge and skills
necessary to accomplish
organizational goals (51.4%).
Employees are recognized for
providing high quality
products and services
(29.7%).

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

145
Table C1, continued
Knowledge Motivation Organization
Creativity and innovation are
rewarded (29.7%).
Pay raises depend on how well
employees perform their jobs
(8.3%).
Policies and programs promote
diversity in the workplace
(recruiting minorities and women,
trainin in awareness of diversity
issues, mentoring) (51.4%).
Employees are protected from
health and safety hazards on the
job (67.6%).
The organization has prepared
employees for potential security
threats (42.9%).
Arbitrary action, personal
favoritism, and coercion for
partisan political purposes are not
tolerated (26.5%).
Prohibited personnel practices are
not tolerated (52.8%).
The results of this survey will be
used to make employee’s agency a
better place to work (2.6%).
Employee’s supervisor supports
their need to balance work and
other issues (62.2%).
Employee’s supervisor/team leader
provides them with opportunities
to demonstrate leadersip skills
(45.9%).
Discussions with employee’s
supervisor/team leader about their
performance are worthwhile
(40.5%).

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

146
Table C1, continued
Knowledge Motivation Organization
Employee’s supervisor/team
leader is committed to a
workforce representative of all
segments of society (50%).
Employee’s supervisor/team
leader provides them with
constructive suggestions to
improve their job performance
(27%).
Supervisor/team leaders in
employee’s work unit support
employee development (40.5%).
Employee’s supervisor/team
leader listens to what they have
to say (51.4%).
Employee’s supervisor/team
leader treats them with respect
(67.6%).
In the last six months,
employee’s supervisor/team
leader has talked with them
about their performance (62.2%).
Employee has trust and
confidence in their supervisor
(41.7%).
Overall, employee feels their
immediate supervisor/team
leader is doing a good job
(43.2%).
In employee’s organization,
leaders generate high levels of
motivation and commitment in
the workforce (10.8%).
In employee’s organization,
leaders maintain high standards
of honesty and integrity (17.1%).

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

147
Table C1, continued
Knowledge Motivation Organization
Managers, suprvisors, and team
leaders work well with
employees of different
backgrounds (27%).
Managers communicate the goals
and priorities of the organization
(29.7%).
Managers review and evaluate
the organization’s progress
toward meeting its goals and
objectives (29.4%).
Managers promote
communication among different
work units (27%).
Managers support collaboration
across work units to accomplish
work objectives (32.4%).
Senior leaders demonstrate
support for work/life programs
(20.6%).
Employees are satisfied with the
policies and practices of their
senior leaders (16.2%).

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

148
APPENDIX D
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Introduction

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

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

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?

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

149
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 taking place in observation? How many participated?
Demographical 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
The first project during the guided discussion sessions at Round Hill Park included breaking the
participants out into small groups and asking them to discuss the following questions and write
their collaborative responses on chart paper to share with the rest of the class:

1. What is surprising about the top-ranked items? Why?
2. What is surprising about the bottom-ranked items? Why?
3. What items are ranked just right?
4. What are you pleased with about the report?
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

150
5. What are you most disappointed about?
6. In the opinion of your group, what is the most important item/rating?

The second group project required groups to pick an EVS category 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 identifying the focus area, stating the
purpose/objective of the plan (including asking what needs to be created, started, changed,
developed, or stopped), developing possible actions for implementation, stating the results the
action plan would have (including what would it increase, improve, or decrease) if implemented,
and what resources would be required to carry out the action plan. The third, and final, project
required each participant in each group to identify the three EVS categories that they felt would
make the biggest difference, if changed, in increasing engaged employees.

Finally, to triangulate the data, at the end of each guided discussion session, the facilitator
handed Round Hill employee participants an index card to print their contact information on, if
they would like to volunteer to participate in a follow-up phone interview one week after the
sessions. Volunteers handed the cards to the facilitator who, in turn, gave them to the observer
(who would also be conducting the phone interviews) after the participants left the room. Each
volunteer was contacted by e-mail or phone the week after the guided discussion sessions to set
an appointment for a phone interview. Two days later, the volunteers who had not yet
interviewed were contacted again. Each interview took approximately 30 minutes and each
interviewee was asked seven questions (see Appendix C):.

Round Hill Park employees participating in the training group will determine what they think the
causes of low employee satisfaction are at their park and solutions they would like to pursue.
During my observation of the training session, I will listen to the connections they make between
possible causes and solutions and focus on the reasons they decide on particular solutions. I will
also be listening for any possible causes or solutions the group might be avoiding or ignoring.

Other areas of focus will include whether or not the causes have been identified as well as can be
(based on the EVS results, what I can draw from their conversation during the training
workshop, and what the literature would predict the causes might be), they were distracted by
other things unrelated to the EVS results that they think are causes (if so, is that because the EVS
didn’t capture those things and the things they are talking about are predicted by the literature, so
the EVS is insufficient), and they are completely off track regarding the causes?

Finally, I will observe whether or not the solutions the group decides upon are congruent with
the causes that surface during the workshop. Specifically, where did their solutions come from?
Is there a logical flow in their discussion from causes to solutions or do the solutions appear out
of the nowhere? Are the agreed upon solutions appropriate (according to my second literature
review) for the causes that were identified? If not, then the causes may not be accurate.

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

151
APPENDIX F
ROUND HILL EMPLOYEE ACTION PLANS
Group 1
Resources: Note: Much debate over whether leadership or resources are most important

 To restore park resources before they decay and are forever lost
1. Properly maintain resources
2. Properly stabilize unused resources
3. Find adaptive uses for resources
 Move HQ into park
 Require HQ employees to spend time in the park (field)
 Leadership would become more awareFor HQ to move into the park, building would
need to be restored/updated
 Split divisions up among locations

Group 2

Focus Area: Better communication
Less Transparencies
Actions: Development of closer communication between divisions, supervisors, and employees
and the time to do so! (Meetings and conference calls, IT suggestion file. Calendar of park
jobs/events).
Results: Better understanding of operations/needs (budget transfers for needed operations/times)
Resources: More money and employees. KEEP WHAT WE HAVE.

Team 5

Focus Area: Resources Management and Allocation

Objective: Reallocate resources - most efficient/bang for buck
1. Inventory: What we have: people, money, skill, buildings, equipment...etc.
What we need for baseline or minimum
2. Compare the lists
3. Reallocate within park - example: move equipment to motor pool, if possible
4. Streamline - example: Meetings (timing, frequency, location) and Buildings (renting vs.
owner occupied).
5. Re-assess/start over
6. Address deficiencies - IT, communications

DECISIONS THAT STICK AND ACCOUNTABILITY for #1-6 ABOVE!!!

Results: Stay within our means and concentrate on what we have — not expanding or shrinking
Resources Required: Policy changes for how funds can be spent.
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

152
Group 3

Need full-time IT resources to better conduct our jobs
Results of decentralizing
 Feel more connected to park, each other, and visitors
 Passion for park and stewards increased
Make efforts to bring staff together
We have the resources! We just need to use them! (Building, people, etc.)
Empowerment: Want more...to be better stewards
 More promoting from within instead of outside
 Clear career progression
 Decentralizing HQ - disconnected from parks and resources - should disperse within park
to be more accessible to rest of park/staff
o Trust employees to conduct/complete their jobs!
o One office for superintendent and division chiefs
o Everyone else work in field and know about their park

Group 4
Leadership
 A chain of command
o Replacing people when they leave
o Make sure there are no breaks in the leadership chain
o A qualified person not just a body
o Speaking to the staff already in place before making a decision on budgets,
staffing, or resource allocation
Results
 Arrange meetings with front line staff
 Let the division chiefs decide/dictate who/were money can be allocated
Resources Required
 Money (better allocation - ex. buildings already in use/owned)
 Time

Group 5

Focus on Leadership Focus
 Leadership has little focus. Jump from one new initiative or emergency to another
 Consult with employees for input
 Leadership has too many pointless meetings
 Drop more with less. Accept less with less
 Do a few things right and ask the workers what they should be!
Actions
 Lobby to free park management from initiatives that have only limited value for our park
 Loosen chain of command to allow more legal initiatives
 Have management shadow us a whole day, once per year

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AT A NATIONAL PARK

153
Resources
 No more required! Just a change in attitude
 Use resources that are already available so more money can be spent on necessities
Results
 Feel good! Go home tired! Have fun! Get your hands dirty! Do what we do!

Group 6
Objective: Leadership
 To encourage park leaders to create an annual operational plan that includes cross-
divisional input that is both realistic and consistent with park legislation and resources in
general.
Actions
 Park staff have majority of influence on priorities
 The park doesn’t chase money for projects that are not in the plan
 Partners are secondary to staff and the public
 Eliminate acting positions. Either fill it or dissolve the position
 Full transparency of budget - what are we spending our money on? End of year $
Resources
 New superintendent/deputy positions filled
 Remove low-priority projects to free up time to work on high-priority projects

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors

PDF

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

PDF

Increasing student performance on the Independent School Entrance Exam (ISEE) using the Gap Analysis approach

Asset Metadata

Creator Craven, Kathryn M. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/06/2014

Defense Date 03/19/2014

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

Tag employee satisfaction,gap analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email bkcraven@yahoo.com,kcraven@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-416902

Unique identifier UC11295399

Identifier etd-CravenKath-2534.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-416902 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CravenKath-2534.pdf

Dmrecord 416902

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Craven, Kathryn M.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA