University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

1

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION FOR THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE: PICTURESQUE PARK

by

Denalee L. Choy

_______________________________________________________________________

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

May 2015

Copyright 2015 Denalee L. Choy

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to all the USC people who I have met along this journey. My back row crew
who turned into the back rows crew. We encouraged each other and kept one another in check.
Carey, you blessed my life with kindness. Although you are not physically finishing the
adventure with us, you are forever in our hearts. Thank you to my chair, Dr. Melora Sundt and
my committee, Dr. Ken Yates and Dr. Katherine Hanson for their patience and guidance through
this process. A special mahalo to the rangers with our endless texts and tables of food, I could
not have asked for a more compassionate group. Coreen, it would have been a much longer and
more arduous process without you at CBTL and dissertation talks that ended up as three hour
phone calls about life. Thank you to my mentor, Dana who is the best cheerleader one could
ever ask for.
Thank you to my family who have encouraged and supported me every step of the way.
A special thanks goes to my mother with her big dreams and knack for making them happen. I
am grateful to my friends and my coworkers who have been extremely understanding and patient
during these past three years.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 4
List of Figures 5
Abstract 6
Chapter 1: Introduction 7
Chapter 2: Literature Review 14
Chapter 3: Methodology 35
Chapter 4: Results 53
Chapter 5: Solutions 71
Chapter 6: Discussion 93
References 102
Appendices 119
Appendix A: Literature Aligned to Structural Framework 119
Appendix B: EVS NPS Survey Questions and Results 128
Appendix C: 2012 EVS Scores For Picturesque Park & NPS 143
Appendix D: Observation Protocol 148
Appendix E: Interview Questions 149

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Four Main Factors Relating to Knowledge, Motivation and 33
Organization Causes
Table 2. Assumed Knowledge Causes 43
Table 3. Assumed Motivation Causes 45
Table 4. Assumed Organization Causes 48
Table 5. Assumed Causes Based On the EVS 52
Table 6. Validated Knowledge Causes 57
Table 7. Validated Motivational Causes 63
Table 8. Validated Organizational Causes 68
Table 9. Validated Causes for Knowledge, Motivation and Organization 70
Table 10. Summary of Validated Causes, Solutions and Implementations 89
Table 11. Implementation Plan 91
Table A1. Communication Literature Aligned to Structural Framework 119
Table A2. Efficacy Literature Aligned to Structural Framework 121
Table A3. Leadership Literature Aligned to Structural Framework 123
Table A4. Accountability Literature Aligned to Structural Framework 125

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. GAP analysis process 38
Figure 2. Breakdown of EVS questions into knowledge, motivation and organization 42
Figure 3. Positive percentages for EVS knowledge questions 42
Figure 4. Positive percentages for EVS motivation questions 44
Figure 5. Positive percentages for EVS organization questions over 65% 46
Figure 6. Positive percentages for EVS organization questions 65% and lower 47

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

6
ABSTRACT
This study applies the Gap Analysis Framework to understand knowledge, motivation and
organizational gaps causing low satisfaction at one of America’s national parks. The purpose of
the study was to identify and validate causes of low employee satisfaction at Picturesque Park,
and determine an implementation plan with solutions based off of research. The research
questions guiding the study are: What are the causes of the gap between the current level of
employee satisfaction at Picturesque Park and the NPS desired level? What are the recommended
solutions to address these causes? How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
Recent data from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) results from Picturesque Park
was used to determine assumed causes. Observations from a facilitated meeting at Picturesque
Park and follow up interviews were used to validate the assumed causes. Findings from the study
indicate employees want: to be recognized for their work, to be empowered, to be involved in
decision-making, to establish a trusting relationship with park leaders. Suggested solutions
include open forums at meetings to improve communication, training for employees to improve
autonomy, and a recognition system designed by employees and management. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2006) framework is used to evaluate the impact of the implementation plan. This
study adds to a small set of research surrounding public sector organizations. The National Park
Service can use findings from this study to start assisting other parks with low employee
satisfaction.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

7
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
“The parks do not belong to one state or to one section.... The Yosemite, the
Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon are national properties in which every citizen has
a vested interest; they belong as much to the man of Massachusetts, of Michigan,
of Florida, as they do to the people of California, of Wyoming, and of Arizona.”
— Stephen T. Mather, National Park Services (NPS) Director, 1917-1929.

Since 1961, the American people have entrusted many of the nation’s treasures to the
National Park Service (NPS) to preserve for all citizens to enjoy. In 2000, the NPS revised its
mission statement to reflect a 21
st
century vision:
The NPS preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the
national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future
generations. The NPS cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of national and
cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout their country and the
world. (National Park Service [NPS], n.d.)
Today the NPS continues to uphold the mission, however the agency struggles with a
common organizational issue of keeping their employees satisfied. Employee satisfaction is a
construct that has been heavily researched and discussed (Falkenburg & Schyns, 2007). In a
seminal study by Locke (1976), employee satisfaction was defined as, “a pleasurable or positive
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1300). The
definition has more recently been cited by Rehman and Waheed (2011); Oshagbemi (2003); and
Wright and Davis (2003). In line with research, organizational leaders are realizing that
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

8
employees are their most valuable assets (Priya, 2011), and therefore, company leaders are more
concerned with employees’ happiness. Job satisfaction of employees is viewed as an essential
aspect of organizations (Oshagbemi, 2003).
Employee satisfaction also has an impact on employee performance. Satisfied employees
move companies towards their organizational goals (Choike Foong Loke, 2001) because they
tend to work harder and have increased productivity (Ellickson, 2002). Employees with a
positive attitude and a willingness to provide good service, result in customer satisfaction and
loyalty (Abbott, 2003; Norquest, Gilbert, King, Brown, & Clarke, 2002). Organizations
interested in increasing productivity can focus on increasing employee satisfaction.
Employee satisfaction affects an organization on multiple levels. For example,
organizational effectiveness is affected by employee satisfaction (Ellickson, 2002). Koys (2006)
notes that management practices impact employee performance and retention, which in turn
impact organizational effectiveness. In the case of organizations with customers, employee
satisfaction is linked to satisfied customers.
Employee satisfaction is also linked to financial aspects for companies. High employee
satisfaction is linked to lower absenteeism and turnover (Ellickson, 2002; Abbott, 2003).
Employees who are happier with their jobs are more likely to show up to work every day and
have fewer instances of absenteeism. Happy employees tend to stay with their jobs and thus,
keep turnover down (Ellickson, 2002; Abbott, 2003). Turnover and absenteeism are costly for
organizations (Koys, 2006). According to CBS News (Lucas, 2012), 40% of America’s
workforce makes under $50,000; however the cost to replace an employee in this salary category
is about 20% of their yearly salary. Mercer (2008) found the total cost of employee absences to
companies is 36% of payroll.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

9
Service (2008) cites numerous issues in the NPS that could be causing low employee
satisfaction: a lack of guidance for employee learning and development, diminishing support, an
unorganized national training process, an absence of data collection and undefined
responsibilities. Part of the mission and organizational goals at NPS is the charge of providing
great service to park visitors. Herein lies the concern — that unsatisfied employees may result in
unsatisfied park visitors. Given what we know about employee satisfaction and the vital role
park employees play to support the vision, the NPS is committed to understanding reasons for
low employee morale and exploring possible solutions. This case study focuses on identifying
the causes of low employee satisfaction at a specific national park, validating the causes and
finding solutions, and suggesting an implementation plan for the Park Service leadership to
increase satisfaction.
The National Park Service
The concept of preserving nature for the benefit and enjoyment of the public is credited
to George Caitlin in the 1830s (Mackintosh, 1999). This idea gained popularity and in 1872
Congress established Yellowstone National Park, administered under the Secretary of the Interior
(NPS, 2014a). In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson created the NPS, charged with conserving
the scenery and wildlife for future enjoyment (Mackintosh, 1999).
Under the Department of the Interior, today the NPS has grown to encompass 401
separate areas and cover more than 84 million acres across all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands (NPS, 2014a). In 2013,
273,630,895 visitors enjoyed the national parks (NPS, 2014a). To accommodate its vastness, it
takes more than 22,000 employees and over 220,000 volunteers to care for our national parks
(NPS, 2014a). Job responsibilities are largely diverse and can range from human resource
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

10
specialists, fish biologists and electricians (NPS, 2014b). Since employee responsibilities vary
so widely, meeting employees’ needs is also a complex task.
Employee Viewpoint Survey
Results of the Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) show employee satisfaction at the NPS
is steadily declining. The EVS is a survey given to all federal agencies annually (every other
year, only a sample population receives the survey) in an effort to benchmark employees’
perspectives on their current work place. Repanshek (2012) noted the NPS has continuously
declined in the EVS category of best places to work in the Federal Government. Specifically, the
NPS ranked 139 out of 292 in 2010 and fell to 163 in 2011. In 2012, the ranking fell again to
166 (Repanshek, 2012). In 2013, the NPS stands at 200 out of 300 agencies (NPS, 2011).
Results show the NPS currently ranks near the bottom when compared to federal agencies in
many areas of employee satisfaction (Service, 2008).
According to the overall EVS results, employees asserted that they lacked a high level of
respect for the highest leaders at the NPS, as employees did not feel leaders generated high levels
of motivation/commitment and leaders did not communicate information. Also, employees felt a
lack of personal empowerment, believed promotions were not merit based, felt a lack of
recognition for their work, and believed that creativity and innovation were not rewarded.
Finally, employees had a negative outlook on promotion opportunities within the NPS (U.S
Office of Personal Management [USOPM], 2012).
Statement of the Problem
As NPS employees continue to be dissatisfied with their jobs, they could be attracted to
positions in the private sector, or in other federal agencies. The NPS needs approximately 700
new employees each year (NPS, 2008). Low EVS rankings of the NPS in the Best Places to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

11
Work category could possibly deter potential candidates from applying to work at the NPS.
Additionally, the EVS indicated that 26% of NPS employees plan to retire in the next five years.
Unhappy employees, combined with the looming retirement of a quarter of NPS employees and
a routinely large number of positions to be filled annually could spell a huge loss in the labor
force for the NPS. This loss of trained and qualified personnel could create productivity
declines, increase the work loads for remaining staff, and spur additional turnover at the NPS.
In recent years, concerns over the Federal Government budget have led to budget cuts,
sequestration, and most recently the government shutdown, in an effort to balance spending with
budget deficiencies. The most recent event, the government shutdown in October, 2013, lasted
16 days, put hundreds of thousands of federal employees out of work, and also resulted in the
closure of all national parks. Due to limited federal funding, it is in the best interest of the NPS
to be as effective and efficient as possible in order to stay competitive with other federal
agencies. The U.S economy continues to be affected by the recession that began in 2007. In
March, 2013, a series of automatic, across-the-board cuts totaling $1.2 trillion over 10 years to
government agencies were made in an effort to gain control of the U.S national debt, which at
the time stood at $16 trillion (Smith, 2013). This current economic environment underscores the
importance of understanding more about the causes of employee satisfaction, with the intent of
supporting financial benefits such as a stabilized workforce and a decrease in costs associated
with employee turnover.
Purpose of the Study
The low EVS ratings prompted aid from NPS administrators to choose three parks from
each of the eight regions to receive assistance. This study looked in-depth into one of the parks
on the list. In an effort to maintain anonymity, Picturesque Park, a pseudonym, is used
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

12
throughout the document. This study analyzed the 2012 EVS data for Picturesque Park in
conjunction with a framework known as the gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008) to identify
and validate assumed causes of low employee satisfaction. After causes of low employee
satisfaction were identified, the literature was reviewed in an effort to find solutions to raise
employee satisfaction. This study is intended to contribute to the research on identifying gaps in
job satisfaction and ways to improve job satisfaction in the public sector.
Research Questions
The research questions that guided the study are:
1. What are the causes of the gap between the current level of employee satisfaction at
Picturesque Park and the NPS desired level?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
Significance of the Study
Federal data suggest wildlife-related jobs are on the rise. California’s Economic
Development Department predicts jobs for wildlife programs to be among the top 50 fastest
growing jobs in the next decade (Humbolt State University, n.d.). Similarly, the Department of
Labor projects wildlife-related jobs to increase by 22% in the next decade (Humbolt State
University, n.d.). This job growth of 22% is 9-15% greater than the average growth of other
sectors in the U.S (Humbolt State University, n.d.). In order to keep up with projected demand,
it is important to study job satisfaction of NPS employees with the goal of retaining employees
and creating a positive work environment.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

13
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is structured in six chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the study and
provides a background of the problem. The problem the study will address is stated as well as
the purpose and significance of the study.
Chapter 2 is a literature review of the research explaining factors that impact employee
satisfaction. The chapter features a table that identifies behaviors that are positively correlated to
high employee satisfaction.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology of the study. This chapter includes the design of
the research, population, sampling procedure and development of instruments. A detailed
description of methods used in the study will be included. The plan for data analysis will also be
discussed. EVS data are presented in this chapter.
Chapter 4 reveals the data from the facilitated meetings, action plans and interviews, in
detail. Data from all three sources are sorted into knowledge, motivation and organization
categories. Assumed causes are turned into validated causes in this section.
Chapter 5 uses the validated causes from Chapter 4, consults the research and locates
solutions for the different validated causes. Additionally, an implementation plan is created
using the research-based solutions.
Chapter 6 is a final discussion. It includes a recommended evaluation of the
implementation plan, strengths and weaknesses of the gap analysis framework, limitations of the
study, future research and finally, a conclusion.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

14
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter will begin with an overview of employee satisfaction followed by a
literature review addressing the factors that affect employee satisfaction: (1) how employee
demographics affect job satisfaction; (2) the impact of communication on satisfaction; (3) how
employee efficacy affects satisfaction; (4) the impact of leadership; and (5) how organizational
accountability affects satisfaction. Additionally, a brief introduction to the gap analysis
framework has been included in this chapter.
Factors that Influence Employee Satisfaction
Hain and Downs (1981) described employee satisfaction as a complex construct over
thirty years ago. Today, the construct still remains complicated with many influencing factors,
some of which researchers are aware, and some that remain to be discovered. However,
researchers have learned that job satisfaction is influenced by: employee demographics,
communication, accountability, efficacy and leadership style.
Demographic Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction
Various demographic factors of employees have been researched in regards to
influencing job satisfaction. These factors include: age, level of education, gender, rank and
length of service.
Age. The literature suggests that age of employees and job satisfaction are associated.
Near, Rice and Hunt (1978) report one of the top two strongest predictors of employee
satisfaction is age. Gibson and Klein (1970) discovered employee satisfaction increased with
age. Additionally, age was more important than tenure when measuring job satisfaction. Siassi,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

15
Crocetti, and Spiro (1975) more specifically found that employees over 40 were more satisfied,
regardless of years of service.
Some researchers offered possible reasons why satisfaction and age are positively
correlated. Siassi et al. (1975) speculate that as employees grow older, their coping skills allow
for better stability and ego strength. Wright and Hamilton (1978) offer evidence as to why older
workers are more satisfied: older workers tend to have better jobs, defining “better” as what
employees think is important in their work. Mottaz (1987) offers four possible explanations.
First, younger workers may place greater importance on intrinsic rewards (i.e., interesting and
challenging work) while older workers may place importance on extrinsic rewards (i.e., pay and
fringe benefits). Therefore, younger workers may feel less satisfied because their jobs are unable
to meet their expectations. The second reason is linked to the first reason: older workers place
less importance on autonomy, having interesting work or promotions and expect less from their
jobs, leading to higher levels of satisfaction. The third reason is linked to one’s ability to change
jobs. Older workers tend to have more seniority and work experience which allow them to easily
find jobs that appeal to them. Generally, older workers often have learned to accommodate and
adjust their work values to the conditions of their work place, which leads to high satisfaction.
Level of education. Satisfaction associated with age is also influenced by level of
education. Younger employees tend to have achieved higher levels of education than older
workers. Glenn, Taylor and Weaver (1977) theorized that more education has a negative impact
on satisfaction as increased education is linked with higher expectations. For example, younger
workers may be more dissatisfied with the routine tasks of a job (Lee & Wilbur, 1985).
Gender. Men and women place different levels of importance on the same aspects of the
workplace: men find earnings and responsibilities important while women find social relations
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

16
and flexibility to be indicators of job satisfaction. Konrad, Ritchie, Lieb, and Corrigall (2000)
performed a meta-analysis covering 31 studies examining the relative preference by gender of
job attributes. Findings included: earnings and responsibility were more important to men than
women, while women placed higher significance than men on good co-workers, a good
supervisor and the significance of the task. Clark (1997) found similar results for women:
female workers tend to identify social relations as the most important aspect in the workplace
and the identification of social relations correlated with higher job satisfaction. Donohue and
Heywood (2004) found higher salaries increase job satisfaction with men more so than women.
Additionally, longer hours lowered satisfaction levels of women but not men. Bender, Donohue
and Heywood (2005) found a significant difference between men and women employed in
companies that allow for flexibility. Women tend to place a significant value on the ability of
their jobs to be flexible while men showed no significant increase in job satisfaction with
companies that allowed for flexibility.
Rank. Oshagbemi (2003) defined rank as an employee’s job level in an occupational
classification. Rank is a top predictor of employee’s job satisfaction (Oshagbemi, 2003; Near et
al., 1978). Ronen (1978) found that when occupational level increases, job satisfaction follows.
Holden and Black (1996) discovered similar results: full time professors were more satisfied than
associate or assistant professors.
Length of service. Oshagbemi (2003) describes length of service as the number of years
an employee has worked. Ronen (1978) found relationship of length of service and employee
satisfaction to be an upside down U-shaped curve. Relatively new employees have lower levels
of satisfaction but become more satisfied as the years progress and satisfaction for those with the
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

17
most years of service begins to decrease again. Most recently, Oshagbemi (2003) found length of
service to be one of the top two predictors of an employee’s job satisfaction.
Beyond demographics, the literature points to four factors that can increase or decrease
employee satisfaction: communication, efficacy, leadership, and accountability. The next
sections will explain the four factors and behaviors associated with employee satisfaction. The
section will conclude with a brief introduction to the gap analysis framework and a table to
represent the findings covered in the literature review.
Communication
Communication in the workplace is a multi-dimensional construct. McCroskey,
Richmond, and Davis (1982) define communication as “a vehicle for dissemination of
information, instruction, and affect” (p. 173). Favorable communication with employees
increases job satisfaction and employee performance (Ainspan & Dell, 2000). The art of
communication can be described in two major components: informational and relational. The
informational component includes providing information to employees. The relational
component is the art of building relationships which lead to increased communication.
Informational dimension. What information is provided and how it is provided to
employees can have an impact on employee satisfaction. The informational dimension is
focused on satisfaction with the content and flow of information in the organization overall.
Pincus (2006) describes the different parts of the informational dimension to include: formal
communication channels, organization-wide information such as corporate policies, and job-
related information, such as job requirements, guidance to solve job-related problems, defining
how job performance will be evaluated, and timeliness of information.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

18
A key aspect of communicating with employees is providing feedback. Feedback from
supervisor to employee can also affect job satisfaction. Pincus (2006) describes personal
feedback as both informational and relational. Informational dimensions involve the supervisor
providing the employee with information about how performance will be judged, while the
relational dimension involves the degree to which employee’s efforts are recognized. Andrews
and Kacmar (2001) surveyed 300 employees of both private and public companies on the effects
of feedback on job satisfaction. Each employee filled out a likert-scale survey regarding five
components of feedback: coworker, supervisor, self, organization, and task. For each of the five
components, employees were asked to measure the consistency, amount and usefulness of
feedback. Results included: employees who receive significant amounts of feedback that were
highly useful and very consistent reported more job involvement, less stress, less uncertainty and
overall higher job satisfaction (Andrews & Kacmar, 2001).
Relational dimension. Building relationships is key to increasing communication that in
turn, links to job satisfaction. Pincus (2006) states the relational dimension focuses on
communication satisfaction with other members of the organization and includes:
communication from employees to supervisors, informal peer communication and two-way
communication between top management and other members of the organization, and how
receptive supervisors are to employees. Pincus (2006) found the relational dimension has a
stronger positive correlation with job satisfaction than the informational dimension.
Communication between supervisors and employees is extremely important when it
comes to job satisfaction. Pincus (2006) discovered supervisor communication has the strongest
link to job satisfaction, specifically, when one’s immediate supervisor is open to ideas and listens
to employees’ problems. Miles, Patrick and King (2011) studied 713 workers at a U.S
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

19
manufacturing company and found that communication from a superior correlates with employee
satisfaction. Supervisor communication was affected by supervisors seeking subordinate
suggestions, showing interest in employees as people, relating to employees on a casual level,
allowing employees to contribute and provide input on important decisions, and showing
employees respect in front of others.
Effective supervisor communication is built upon physical presence and frequency.
Physical presence is usually described as face-to-face communication. Studies by Jo and Shim
(2005) and Hargie, Tourish and Wilson (2002) confirm the importance of face-to-face
communication between superior and subordinate, as employees’ preferred sources of
information are face-to-face communications with direct supervisors. Jo and Shim (2005) found
useful information is more likely to be communicated to employees straight from supervisors,
over methods such as publications, newsletters or video messages. Johlke and Duhan (2000) add
that two-way discussions between a subordinate and a superior lead to a clear understanding of
job duties.
Positive outcomes regarding trust occur when management makes an effort to enhance
interpersonal relationships via communication. Trust in superiors is a strong predictor of job
satisfaction (Pettit, Goris, & Vaught, 1997). Jo and Shim (2005) found a strong positive
relationship between trusting relationships and relational communication. When superiors
engage in interpersonal communication regarding the organization (for example: useful advice,
helpful information and when organizational news is shared) employees perceive a trusting
relationship (Jo & Shim, 2005). Overall, a strong positive relationship was found between
relational communication and trusting relationships (Jo & Shim, 2005).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

20
Without the knowledge and know-how to communicate properly, superiors will not be
able to create trusting and interpersonal relationships that Jo and Shim (2005) discovered.
Madlock (2008) found strong a relationship between supervisor communicator competence and
employee communication satisfaction. Communicator competence includes: knowledge,
motivation, skill, behavior and effectiveness (Spitzberg, 1983). Interactions from leaders require
a specific finesse of communicating goals while maintaining interpersonal and conversational
norms (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1981). Cushman and Craig (1976) add that communication
involves competencies in listening and negotiating. Salacuse (2007) agreed by saying today’s
workforce employs more educated employees with higher intelligences, requiring superiors to
lead by negotiation. Additionally, in order to convince employees to follow the leader’s vision,
effective communication is important. Stohl (1984) described language, gestures and voice to be
part of a communicator’s competency. Shaw (2005) adds that for employees to perceive
supervisors as competent communicators, supervisors need to share and respond in a timely
manner, actively listen to other points of view, communicate clearly and concisely with all levels
in the organization and make use of various communication channels.
Wheeless, Wheeless and Howard (1984) also agree with the importance of the
supervisor’s communication skills and place a special significance on the supervisor’s ability to
be receptive to employees. Receptivity involves being flexible and tolerant while listening to
feedback and also being open to input from employees that include ideas, opinions, suggestions
and innovations (Wheeless et al., 1984). When supervisors exhibit receptivity, a sense of
empathy, consideration, care and concern emerge that are salient parts of building relationships
with employees that lead to job satisfaction. Based on results from studying the relationship of
communication and decision participation in relation to employee satisfaction, Wheeless et al.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

21
(1984) recommended supervisors should be trained to be perceptive and acquire conversational
skills.
Communication in the workplace is not limited to only communication between
employees and supervisors. Communication among employees is important as well. Horizontal
communication describes a more casual communication with peers and can include information
heard through the grapevine (Pincus, 2006). Additionally, horizontal communication
encompasses the accuracy of the information and how freely the information flows through the
organization. Thomas, Zolin and Hartman (2009) describe organizational openness as the
willingness of employees to exchange ideas being positively associated with trust and
involvement between peers, supervisors and top management.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is a construct stemming from a socio-cognitive model created by Bandura
(1997). The construct describes an individual’s beliefs about one’s competence and capability to
complete a task or handle environmental demands (Nielsen, Yarker, Randall, & Munir, 2009).
Bandura (1997) describes self-efficacy in the work place as one’s self-assessment of his or her
ability to cope with the demands of the job, given the resources he or she already has. In basic
terms, self-efficacy is an employee’s belief about his or her capability to complete tasks at work
(Klassen & Chiu, 2010). Self-efficacy can depend on a person’s knowledge and training in
specific skills, therefore it is possible for an employee to have high self-efficacy in regards to one
task but low self-efficacy when it comes to a different task.
Self-efficacy is linked to emotional health, which in turn has an effect on job satisfaction
and performance. Employees with high self-efficacy possess lower depression and anxiety rates
(Jex & Bliese, 1999; Stetz, Stetz, & Bliese, 2006). Generalized self-efficacy, self-esteem,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

22
internal locus of control and emotional stability significantly predict job performance and
satisfaction (Judge & Bono, 2001). Therefore when an employee is emotionally healthy, job
satisfaction and performance are positively affected.
Self-efficacy has a positive effect on attitudes and behaviors (Gardner & Pierce, 1998).
Beliefs an employee forms about his or her role in the organization positively affect employee
job attitudes, behaviors, and motivation (Gardner & Pierce, 1998). Employees with higher self-
efficacy have better attitudes towards their jobs (Zellars, Hochwarter, Perrewe, Miles and
Kiewitz, 2001; Federici & Skaalvik, 2012). High self-efficacy negatively predicts exhaustion,
burnout and ultimately turnover (Zellars et al., 2001).
High self-efficacy has occupational benefits. Many researchers agree that self-efficacy is
linked to job satisfaction (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca, 2003; Caprara, Barbaranelli,
Steca, & Malone, 2006; Federici & Skaalvik, 2012; Gardner & Pierce, 1998; Luthans, Zhu, &
Avolio, 2005; Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Nielsen et al., 2009; Klassen, Usher, & Bong, 2010; Judge
& Bono, 2001; Zellars et al., 2001). Employees who have high self-efficacy also identify with
the organization and have a higher commitment level to the organization (Luthans et al., 2005;
Federici & Skaalvik, 2012). Self-efficacy has a positive link to employee performance (Gardner
& Pierce, 1998). In the workplace, employees with high self-efficacy tend to take proactive
approaches during situations of high stress and take responsibility for a broader set of
responsibilities (Parker, 1994; Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, & Primeau, 2001).
Group and self-efficacy have profound effects on each other. Feelings toward one’s
colleagues and perceived support from colleagues and one’s supervisor affect job satisfaction
(Canrinus, Helms-Lorenz, Beijaard, Buitink, & Hofman, 2011). More specifically, a group who
shares the belief that the group is capable of accomplishing a task is likely to have increased job
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

23
satisfaction (Klassen et al., 2010; Caprara et al., 2003). Interestingly, not every member needs to
have high-self efficacy for all members to have group efficacy. Zellars et al. (2001) discovered
high group self-efficacy could minimize the effects of individuals in the group who may have
low self-efficacy. Individuals can still experience high job satisfaction because those individuals
feel assured when they perceive other group members to be competent (Nielsen et al., 2009).
Leadership
Leadership behaviors. Early research on managerial leadership focused efforts on
finding patterns of personal traits in successful leaders (Fernandez, 2008). However in the
1950s, weak and inconsistent discoveries resulted in a shift and focus towards researching
behaviors of effective leadership (Fernandez, 2008). The shift in research was led by researchers
from Ohio State University who identified two categories of leadership behavior: task-oriented
and relations-oriented behavior (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2002). Two broader categories were also
created: consideration and initiating structure (Fernandez, 2008). Coincidentally, around the
same time, researchers at the University of Michigan found two similar dimensions of leadership
behavior: employee-oriented and production-oriented (Fernandez, 2008).
Categories and dimensions identified by researchers at Ohio State University and the
University of Michigan seem to align. Leaders who exhibit task-oriented, production-oriented
and initiating structure behaviors are more concerned about accomplishing the work involved in
a job setting, while leaders who tend to show more relations-oriented, employee-oriented and
consideration behavior show more concern for building relationships with and showing care for
employees.
Care for employees. Behaviors that show care for employees foster a harmonious and
emotionally supportive work environment, and in turn lead to higher levels of employee job
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

24
satisfaction and motivation (Fernandez, 2008). Leaders show concern for employees by being
friendly and providing emotional support (Fernandez, 2008). Leaders can create open channels
of communication by listening to subordinates, keeping employees informed and involving
employees in decision making by consulting with them and taking their advice (Fernandez,
2008). Supportive behaviors also include showing an appreciation for employees and providing
recognition and feedback (Fernandez, 2008). Employees who perceive their leaders as
emotionally supportive and helpful are more likely to rate their leaders as effective which
increases employee satisfaction (Bass, 1990).
Care for tasks. Initiating of structure behavior is defined as behaviors that show the
leader cares about accomplishing group goals. Additionally, behavior of this type defines and
organizes group activities (Fernandez, 2008). Behaviors include: goal setting, defining roles of
subordinates, directing and coordinating subordinate activities, keeping open communication,
stressing deadlines, ensuring consent with procedures and progress towards goals and identifying
and solving problems (Fernandez, 2008). Production-oriented leaders concentrate efforts on
tasks by setting goals, planning and organizing work for employees, supervising employees and
obtaining resources for tasks (Fernandez, 2008).
Researchers at Ohio State University found the categories to be independent of each
other: a leader could score high in one category and low in another (Fernandez, 2008). However,
many leaders who were observed had both types of behaviors. Blake and Mouton (1964) agreed
and suggested that highly effective leaders spend their time building relationships with
employees and ensuring tasks are completed. Other research shows the different types of
behavior intermingle and affect employee performance, perceptions of their leader and job
satisfaction (Fernandez, 2008).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

25
Development-oriented leadership behavior. In addition to concern for tasks and
relations, a third type of leader behavior, development-oriented behavior, was more recently
identified (Fernandez, 2008). Similarly, Yukl, Gordon and Taber (2002) also assert three
categories of leadership: task, relations, and change behavior. Development-oriented behavior
promotes employee experimentation, innovation and organizational change (Ekvall & Arvonen,
1991; Lindell & Rosenqvist, 1992). Fernandez (2008) adds that leaders monitor the external
environment, create a vision for change, and take personal risks to bring about change.
Employee performance and initiative are positively affected by leaders who empower employees
to develop their full potential, improve their skills, abilities, self-efficacy and self-esteem (Wang
& Howell, 2010).
Transformational leadership. Positive behaviors of effective leaders include: showing
care for employees, tasks and organizational growth however transformational leadership takes
leading others to another level. Transformational leaders create valuable and positive changes in
those they lead (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational leaders not only create change in their
followers, they transform followers and change them into leaders by revamping perceptions and
values, therefore changing expectations and aspirations (Burns, 1978). Creating change is
significant because it impacts organizations as well as employees. Transformational leadership
requires a leader to utilize personality traits and abilities to create change with his or her
example, articulate an invigorating vision and design challenging goals (Bass, 1998). A
transformational leader transforms followers’ values to align with organizational goals in order
to convince them of the salience of the outcomes (Bass, 1998).
With transformational leadership, both leaders and followers work together to increase
levels of motivation and morale for one another (Burns, 1978). Transformational leaders promote
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

26
a sense of community with their followers. Employees help each other out, encourage each other
and have a sense of harmony among themselves and the organization (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
Team performance is positively affected by leaders stressing the importance of group goals,
developing shared beliefs and values, and working as a team to achieve group goals (Wang &
Howell, 2010). Additionally, leaders empower, inspire, motivate, enhance morale and
performance, and encourage growth of followers. Research in the past three decades has
supported transformational leadership as it is shown to have positive effects on organizational
outcomes (Bass & Bass, 2008). Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Boomer (1996) discovered that
followers of a transformational leader not only surpass projected performance but employee
satisfaction increased and organizational commitment was exhibited. Lam and O’Higgins (2012)
found supervisors who can manage not only their own emotions but also their employees’
emotions enhance their employees’ feelings of job satisfaction.
Transformational leadership is comprised of four components: idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration.
Idealized influence. Idealized influence begins with creating trust between leaders and
followers. Trust is one of the most important aspects in creating successful transformational
leaders (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Yukl, 2002). The initial move
towards trust can be a challenging time as followers may feel uncertain, anxious, and fearful
(Kotter, 1996). Transformational leaders conduct themselves in a fashion that respects, admires
and trusts followers in order to obtain idealized influence (Bass, 1998). Trust is built when
followers believe leaders behave as role models by relentlessly doing what is right and exhibiting
high moral and ethical standards in their actions (Bass, 1998). Leaders also take risks and are
persistent and determined (Bass, 1998). Expressing concern for followers’ needs, respecting
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

27
agreements, demonstrating persistence in achieving the vision, and eagerly sacrificing for the
benefit of the group are other ways leaders build trust with followers (Kirkpatrick & Locke,
1996).
Inspirational motivation. Communication skills allow leaders to express their vision in a
powerful way that engages followers (Bass & Bass, 2008). Creating a shared vision is arguably
one of the most salient aspects of transformational leadership (Jung & Avolio, 2000). The ability
to articulate a vision is a key aspect of transformational leadership. A vision that is articulated
clearly empowers others to meet high standards, inspires trust, and gives meaning to
organizational life (Northouse, 2012). When visions are clearly articulated, followers are more
committed in their efforts, have a positive outlook on the future and strongly believe in their own
capabilities (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). A clear vision with a strong sense of purpose is key
for followers to be motivated to act (Bass & Bass, 2008). With a shared vision, transformational
leaders create an atmosphere of enthusiasm and optimism among followers.
Intellectual stimulation. Leaders create a culture of creating new ways to solve
problems promoting creativity and innovation (Bass, 1998). Followers are encouraged to rethink
assumptions, take risks and offer suggestions and ideas to leaders (Bass & Bass, 2008). Leaders
mentor independent thinkers and promote solving problems in better ways. Within this culture,
public criticism is replaced by private discussions (Bass, 1998).
Individualized consideration. Leaders play the role of a mentor in an effort to provide
individualized attention and assistance to followers (Bass & Bass, 2008). Mentoring allows
individual needs to be addressed and opens communication between leader and follower. With
personalized attention and support, followers can achieve more and reach their potential (Bass,
1998). Leaders show respect and can validate contributions of each individual follower.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

28
Effects on performance. Following the discoveries of leadership behaviors by
researchers at Ohio State University, studies focused on testing whether or not task-oriented
behavior had a positive effect on group and subordinate performance (Fernandez, 2008). Bass
(1990) concludes that:
Successful task-oriented leaders are instrumental in contributing to their groups’
effectiveness by setting goals, allocating labor, and enforcing sanctions. They initiate
structure for their followers, define the roles of others, explain what to do and why,
establish well-defined patterns of organization and channels of communication, and
determine the ways to accomplish assignments. (p. 472)
Despite the conclusion, Bass discovered another vastly different outcome of task-oriented
leaders: subordinates viewed task-oriented leaders as punitive, autocratic, and detached, which
resulted in a decrease of employee satisfaction.
The literature suggests development-oriented behavior has various effects on
organizational outcomes (Fernandez, 2008). Development-oriented behaviors can help
organizations become more adaptive and responsive. Leaders engaging in development-oriented
behavior can increase organizational performance by effectively identifying the best strategies to
improve organizations (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991). Developmental-oriented behavior can also
encourage innovation and creativity with employees (Fernandez, 2008).
After reviewing all the findings, Bass (1990) concluded the most consistent finding was
that relations-oriented behaviors are positively related to employee satisfaction. It is noteworthy
that Bass discovered evidence that the relationship between task-oriented behavior and job
satisfaction remains mixed. Additionally, some studies show task-oriented behaviors are
positively correlated with group productivity, goal achievement and subordinate performance,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

29
but some exceptions do remain. Lastly, some studies show development-oriented behaviors are
positively correlated with employee perceptions of leader’s effectiveness and subsequently job
satisfaction (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Lindell & Rosenqvist, 1992).
Accountability
Accountability can be described as employees’ beliefs of the extent they will be required
to justify their actions in the workplace to other individuals with reward or punishment powers
(Tetlock, 1985; Wood & Winston, 2005). In organizations, no one is exempt from accountability
as customers have higher demands from companies, forcing high-ups to demand more from
employees. Accountability is so important that in the absence of it, individuals would be able to
do what they wanted, when they wanted to (Hall, Zinko, Perryman, & Ferris, 2009).
Additionally, Hall et al. (2009) argue that entities would no longer exist but instead be replaced
with chaos and social unrest.
Types of accountability. There are three types of accountability that are most relevant
to employee satisfaction: bureaucratic, professional and reciprocal accountability. Bureaucratic
accountability is when organizations are compliant, have smooth running systems and measure
success with outcomes (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003). Henstchke and Wohlstetter (2004)
describe the four basic key elements of bureaucratic accountability. First, a contractual
relationship between two parties exists. Second, the provider is held responsible for proving a
good or service and reaching agreed-upon goals. Third, the provider’s performance is based
upon achieving goals. Finally, there are consequences (rewards or sanctions) for performance.
Professional accountability is when employees hold each other accountable based on
professional conduct (Burke, 2005). The responsibility of professional conduct shifts from
employer to either the development of a professional code of conduct, a professional board or a
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

30
professional learning community. In this model, employees help each other by encouraging
professional conduct (Burke, 2005). Social relationships between coworkers can impact
employee satisfaction and performance (Durst & DeSantis, 1997). Stecher and Kirby (2004)
point out that a leader’s expertise in professional standards and practices can help meet
employees’ needs.
Reciprocal accountability is when an employer demands positive outcomes from
employees but in return has a responsibility to provide employees with the capacity to meet the
demands (Elmore, 2005). The reciprocal nature of this type of accountability involves
companies investing in employees’ skills and knowledge while employees prove their
performance is improving (Elmore, 2005). Additionally, the reciprocity holds true for each
increment of performance and resources provided — that is for each increment of resources
provided, employee performance is expected to improve. The clarity of goals and expectations
has an impact on employee satisfaction and performance (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2011). An
employee’s access to job-related knowledge and skills is associated with employee satisfaction
and performance (Ellickson, 2002; Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2011). If a leader does not
establish the culture of reciprocal accountability and does not hold oneself accountable for
providing employees with adequate training and resources to perform successfully, employee
satisfaction is negatively affected (Elmore, 2005). The reciprocal responsibility from employee
to employer and vice versa is the glue that holds accountability systems together (Elmore, 2005).
Hall et al. (2009) discovered that accountability led to high participation in citizenship
type behavior, which added to task performance and satisfaction through reputation. The
implications for companies are to find the fine line that allows some level of accountability, but
not too much, which will result in dysfunctional outcomes for employees: more accountability is
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

31
not always better. Thoms, Dose and Scott (2002) point to the awareness by coworkers and
managers of an employee’s work as the most important part of accountability that was linked to
employee satisfaction. Managers who are trying to improve accountability can include
awareness of quality and quantity of work completed in order to improve job satisfaction.
Accountability has the ability to affect employee satisfaction both positively and
negatively. Accountability coupled with leadership behaviors that are abusive are negatively
associated with employee satisfaction while, accountability coupled with a close, participative
relationship between supervisor and employee are positively associated with employee
satisfaction (Breaux, Munyon, Hochwarter, & Ferris, 2008; Ellickson, 2002; Kim, 2002).
Accountability combined with a lack of trust results in lower employee satisfaction, while
accountability combined with trust in a supervisor was positively associated with employee
satisfaction (Thoms et al., 2002). Combining accountability with positive relationships between
supervisors and employees has positive impacts on employee satisfaction.
Employees’ perceptions of accountability have a strong impact on job satisfaction. An
employee’s perception of how his or her talents are being utilized in the workplace can have an
impact on satisfaction (Durst & DeSantis, 1997). The way an employee perceives adequate or
inadequate pay can impact satisfaction: if an employee believes his or her pay is low, this belief
can lead to low satisfaction (Durst & DeSantis, 1997; Ellickson, 2002). Employees who
perceive promotions and rewards are merit-based as opposed to favoritism or politics have
higher employee satisfaction (Ellickson, 2002; Swiss, 2005; Yang & Kassekert, 2010).
Fernandez and Moldagaziev (2011) found similar results: recognizing achievements and
performance levels of employees leads to higher employee satisfaction and performance.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

32
Public vs. private. Van Wart (2003) discovered the amount of research based in public
administration relating to leadership paled in comparison to the private sector. For example, in a
search of the Public Administration Review journal, 110 articles were found in the past 61 years.
When the search was narrowed further specifically to leadership, 25 articles were found, which
breaks down to approximately four articles per decade (Van Wart, 2003). Recent synthesis of
public-sector leadership models simply does not exist (Van Wart, 2003). In short, most
leadership studies focus on private companies. The significance of a lack of public leadership
studies impacts this literature review and study.
Organizational mission attachment is described as how attached employees are to the
organization’s mission. Organizational mission attachment differs with public and private
companies because public and private companies have very different missions. Goals of private
companies revolve around profit. Publically traded private companies are responsible to
shareholders for revenue. Organizational missions for public companies are very different from
those of for-profit companies. With the NPS, the organizational mission is to preserve the
National Parks for the American people.
Holding employees accountable based on the organizational goals differs in public
organizations and private companies. In private companies, measuring when an employee is not
working towards a more profitable company can be calculated by profits. However, in a public
organization like the NPS, it is much more complicated to measure if an employee is not
working towards preserving the park resources. Therefore, accountability is harder to measure in
the public sector.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

33
Gap Analysis Framework
The gap analysis framework is a systematic process organizations use to identify and
close performance gaps in an effort to reach specific goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizations
use the framework to identify large goals and then find gaps in performances to close in order to
meet the larger goals. Clark and Estes (2008) assert that performance problems are related to a
combination of gaps in these three areas: knowledge, motivation or organizational barriers. A
full description of the framework will be discussed in Chapter 3.
The four main factors of employee satisfaction: communication, efficacy, leadership and
accountability impact knowledge, motivation and organization causes. The literature from the
four factors are aligned under knowledge, motivation and organizational causes in Tables A1-A4
located in Appendix A. The literature suggests that communication and accountability have the
strongest relationship with knowledge, motivation and organization and therefore will likely
have the greatest impact on employee satisfaction.

Table 1
Four Main Factors Relating to Knowledge, Motivation and Organization Causes
Knowledge Motivation Organization
Communication X X X
Efficacy X
Leadership X
Accountability X X X

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

34
Summary
Communication, efficacy, leadership and accountability are the four factors in
conjunction with knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes that will help identify causes
of low employee satisfaction. When the four factors are compared to the EVS, communication
and accountability appeared to be categories contributing to the root causes. Therefore, both
factors will be examined further alongside data from the NPS. The next chapter will describe the
methods used to gather and analyze data.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

35
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
While the NPS prepares to celebrate 100 years of preserving America’s natural beauty in
2016, achieving a high level of employee satisfaction is crucial to the organization (Service,
2008). However, when measured as a good place to work, the NPS ranks at the bottom of all the
Department of Interior bureaus (Service, 2008). Satisfaction is imperative as employees who are
satisfied move companies towards organizational goals as productivity increases (Chiok Foong
Loke, 2001). Financial benefits such as lower absenteeism and turnover, are also linked to
higher levels of employee satisfaction (Ellickson, 2002; Abbott, 2003).
The purpose of this study was to identify causes for low employee satisfaction at
Picturesque Park as indicated by the EVS scores from Spring, 2012, and to utilize information
collected from the EVS, observations on site at two-day facilitated workshop and individual
interviews of five employees, as well as the literature, to find solutions that the park can
implement in hopes of increasing employee satisfaction as it is tied to organizational success.
The research questions are:
1. What are the causes of the gap between the current level of employee satisfaction at
Picturesque Park and the NPS desired level?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
Chapter 3 explains the methodology that was used to conduct the study including: a
description of the sample and population, instrumentation to be used, how data was collected and
how data was analyzed.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

36
Overview of Methods
Research is a systematic process to answer a question. Educational research can be
conducted via three major approaches: quantitative, qualitative, or a combination: mixed
methods approach (Johnson & Christensen, 2007). The quantitative approach looks to describe
the ‘what’ of a situation. Quantitative methods quantify, or count something. Surveys are a
commonly used method to collect data that “describe, compare, or explain individual and
societal knowledge, feelings, values, preferences, and behavior” (Fink, 2013, p. 2). Surveys
count information by attaching a number, often in the form of a Likert scale, to information.
Data are then analyzed using inferential or descriptive statistics (Fink, 2013).
Qualitative research makes sense of complex situations (Richards, Richards, & Morse,
2012). Qualitative methods require inductive reasoning as the researcher analyzes data from the
fields based on the perceptions and values of the participants (Patton, 2002). Qualitative
methods describe the ‘why’ of a situation. Interviews, as a form of qualitative methods, are used
to capture a participant’s story (Patton, 2002). Interviews utilize a narrow focus on opinions and
beliefs of the interviewee.
For over a century, quantitative and qualitative researchers have debated over which
method was superior (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). However, quantitative and qualitative
approaches are not opposites, rather extremes on a spectrum with mixed methods in the middle
(Johnson & Christensen, 2007). A study can be purely qualitative or quantitative but each study
tends to fall somewhere within the spectrum. Because quantitative and qualitative methods
individually are often unable to capture many situations on their own, mixed methods are
utilized.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

37
Site Selection
Based on the EVS results of all the national parks, NPS leadership chose three parks from
each of the eight regions, totaling 24 parks. The 24 parks were the focus of a targeted effort to
raise employee satisfaction. For this paper, a single park was chosen from the list of 24 identified
parks to be studied in depth in an effort to improve employee satisfaction. This site was unique
because the superintendent at the park volunteered Picturesque Park to be studied.
Using EVS results, the NPS decided that positive scores below 60% were considered a
cause for concern, and scores between 30-40% positive considered very low, and thus of critical
concern. Based on the EVS results, the NPS targeted 24 parks for which to provide individual
Organization Development support. Each park would have a two-day meeting, facilitated by a
NPS consultant from the Organization Development Branch. The goal of the meeting was to
further discuss causes of low employee low satisfaction and to identify possible courses of action
to remedy the problems. The NPS allowed observations by the researchers during the facilitated
meetings.
Description
At 18,000 years old, the land on which Picturesque Park sits is an historic site. The park
covers 44,6000 acres of salt marshes, swamps, forests, and grasslands. The various recreational
activities include: swimming, walking, bicycling, fishing, hunting, and camping. Ranger-guided
activities, visitor centers and recreational activities are offered depending on the season.
Participants
Of the 55 employees at Picturesque Park that were not considered top managers and were
not furloughed or on leave, 40 employees participated in the study. Employees’ years of service
ranged from less than a year to 27 years at Picturesque Park. When all the years of service were
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

38
totaled, the participants had over 500 years of total National Park Service experience. Various
park jobs were represented during the study: administration, IT, education, interpretation,
maintenance, natural resources, law enforcement, and other positions.
Description of the Gap Analysis Framework
This study was modeled after the gap analysis process explained by Clark and Estes
(2008) in order to identify performance gaps. This systematic process includes: identifying
organizational goals, measuring current performance, determining performance gap, identifying
causes that lead to gaps, validating assumed causes, implementing solutions and evaluating the
solutions. According to Clark and Estes (2008), all performance shortfalls can be attributed to
knowledge, motivation or organizational barriers. It is important to determine knowledge,
motivation and organizational causes before determining solutions. Proper identification and
validation of causes ensures effective solutions.

Figure 1. GAP analysis process

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

39
Gap Analysis Steps One and Two
The first step in the gap analysis framework is to identify an organizational goal. This
goal is usually a larger target that may take one to five years to obtain (Rueda, 2011). After the
organizational goal is set, smaller performance goals are aligned to support the larger goal.
Clark and Estes (2008) recommend work goals be concrete (clear), challenging (achievable but
difficult), and current (short-term). The organizational goal of the NPS is to be in the top 10 best
places to work within the federal government but it is currently ranked 166 of 292 agencies
(Service, 2008). For Picturesque Park, researchers set the performance goal to improve EVS
scores by 20%.
Gap Analysis Step Three
The third step involves determining achievement gaps by figuring out the difference
between current performance and goals. The EVS measures 14 indexes and according to the
NPS, any scores below 60% are considered a cause for concern. Almost half of Picturesque
Park’s indexes (six of 14) scored below 60% (see Appendix B). Two indexes, Effective
Leadership-Empowerment Index (38%) and Performance-Based Rewards & Advancement Index
(47%) had some of the lowest index scores. The empowerment index includes: employees have
the feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work processes (30%) and satisfaction with
involvement in decisions that affect your work (47%). The rewards and advancement index
includes: promotions based on merit (37%), recognition for providing high quality products and
services (50%), creativity and innovation are rewarded (45%), satisfaction with recognition
(43%) and satisfaction with opportunities to get a better job within the organization (43%). The
questions that make up these two indexes will serve as the gap to be addressed.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

40
Gap Analysis Step Four
The fourth step is to identify assumed causes using the literature review and Picturesque
Park EVS results (see Appendices B & C). When diagnosing the problem, collecting
information regarding employees’ perceptions about the barriers of achieving goals will aid in
closing the gap (Clark & Estes, 2008). In other words, when it comes to the same work goal,
there are different perceptions about problems and solutions. According to Clark and Estes
(2008), there are three causes of performance gaps: knowledge (people’s knowledge and skill),
motivation (motivation to achieve the goal) and organization (barriers that prevent goals from
being achieved).
Knowledge. According to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge problems exist when
people do not know how to accomplish goals and when employers anticipating future challenges
call for problem solving. According to Anderson et al. (2001), knowledge is categorized into
four major categories: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. In addition, the
process of mastering knowledge is broken into six categories: remember, understand, apply,
analyze, evaluate, and create (Anderson et al., 2001). In order to appropriately fix the knowledge
gap, the type of knowledge that is lacking must be identified accurately. For example, if an
employee is unable to fill out an illness leave form, it could be the employee is unable to
remember information such as the codes the form requires or other factual information such as
what form is needed and where to locate the form. Perhaps the employee may not have an
understanding of the procedural steps needed for the process. Accurately identifying the gap is
important. For example, maybe the factual gap identified was wrongly determined as a
conceptual problem: the employee could not figure out the difference between illness leave
forms and vacation request forms. The solutions for fixing the knowledge gap as opposed to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

41
fixing the conceptual gap vary greatly. Fixing the knowledge gap can include providing the
codes the form requires or where to obtain forms or the steps needed to take to successfully fill
out a form. Fixing the conceptual gap includes providing information about the differences
between illness and vacation forms.
Assumed knowledge causes. Picturesque Park’s average rating for knowledge-based
questions on the EVS was 72.7% positive. This average is considered acceptable by the NPS as it
sits above the 60% positive threshold that is considered cause for concern and was the highest
averaged score, above motivation-related and organizational-causes. Picturesque Park’s
knowledge EVS score is 73% and the goal is to improve knowledge items to 88%. Therefore the
gap between the current levels and desired levels is 15%.
It is important to note that of the 71 eligible survey questions, about 10%, or seven
questions, were categorized under knowledge, making it the smallest category (see Figure 2).
Although there are 84 total EVS questions, 13 questions were not counted, as they were not
relevant to the focus. Among these were questions asking about participation and satisfaction of
various programs; telework, alternative works schedules, health and wellness programs,
employee assistance programs, child-care programs, and elder care programs.
Overall, the seven responses in the knowledge category were positive, indicating
employees feel they are adequately provided with knowledge to complete their tasks (see Figure
3). Only one item, satisfaction with training received for one’s current job, fell below the NPS
cut off score of 60%. Therefore, training needs is considered an assumed cause.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

42

Figure 2. Breakdown of EVS questions into knowledge, motivation and organization

Figure 3. Positive percentages for EVS knowledge questions

Knowledge
Motivation
Organization
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Satisfaction
with training
Info from
Mgmt about
Org
Know how to
reach perf
levels
Org succ
accomplish
mission
Enough
information to
do job
Know what's
expected
Know how
work fits org
goals
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

43
Table 2
Assumed Knowledge Causes
EVS Question EVS Score
Satisfaction with training 60%

Motivation. Motivation is the drive that gets employees going, keeps them moving and
specifies how much effort is needed for tasks (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation is broken up
into three indexes: active choice, persistence and mental effort. Active choice is when an
individual decides to begin actively pursuing a goal. Persistence is when an individual
prioritizes and endures in achieving the most important goals. Mental effort, or the exertion of
mental power, is necessary after choosing and persisting in achieving a goal. Individuals use
their confidence in achieving a goal to assess how much mental effort is needed (Clark & Estes,
2008). Therefore the gap between the current levels and desired levels is 13%.
Assumed motivational causes. Picturesque Park’s average rating for motivation-based
questions on the EVS was 64% positive. This average sits above the 60% positive threshold that
is considered cause for concern and fell in the middle of the knowledge and organizational
averaged scores. Picturesque Park’s motivation EVS score is 64% and the goal is to improve
motivation items to 77%. Of the 71 eligible survey questions, about 42% or 17 questions were
categorized under motivation, placing it in the middle between knowledge and organization (see
Figure 1).
Of the 17 total motivation questions, eight questions fell under the 60% mark, which the
NPS has decided is cause for concern. Two questions fell in the 30-40% range, which were
considered to be very low scores. Of the Picturesque Park employees, 30% had a feeling of
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

44
personal empowerment with respect to the work process, were 43.3% satisfied with the
recognition they receive for doing a good job; were 43.4% satisfied with their opportunity to get
a better job at the NPS; were 46.7% satisfied with their involvement in decisions that affect their
work (see Figure 4). Therefore the questions with the lowest percentages are considered
assumed causes: empowerment, recognition, job opportunities and involvement in decision-
making.

Figure 4. Positive percentages for EVS motivation questions

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

45
Table 3
Assumed Motivation Causes
EVS Questions EVS Scores
Employees have a sense of personal empowerment 30%
Satisfaction with recognition 43%
Satisfaction with job opportunities 43%
Satisfied with involvement with decision-making 47%

Organization. When there is a lack of efficient and effective work processes and
resources, an organizational problem exists (Clark & Estes, 2008). An organizational problem
such as a policy, procedure or lack of facilities can hinder the achievement of a goal (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Sometimes policies can work against people trying to achieve a goal, thus creating
a conflict of interest. For example, a park ranger’s job description could be to educate the
visitors about the park and its resources, however, park policies could require the ranger to
complete so much paperwork that the ranger’s time is spent mostly filling out paperwork, rather
than being out in the park educating visitors.
Assumed organizational causes. The average rating for organizational questions on the
EVS was 60.6% positive. This average sits on the 60% positive threshold that is considered
cause for concern and fell at the bottom of the knowledge and motivation averaged scores.
Picturesque Park’s organizational EVS score is 61% and the goal is to improve motivation items
to 72%. Therefore the gap between the current levels and desired levels is 11%. It is of note that
of the 71 eligible survey questions, about 66% or 47 questions were categorized under
organization, which is more questions categorized under organization than knowledge and
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

46
motivation (see Figure 2). Of the 47 questions, over half, or 24 questions, fell under 60% mark,
which the NPS has decided is cause for concern (see Figures 5 & 6). Five questions fell in the
30- 40% range which are considered to be very low scores. One highlight is 36.7% of employees
felt promotions were based on merit. The lowest scoring questions are the assumed causes:
promotions are not based on merit, poor performers are not dealt with appropriately, differences
in performances are not recognized in meaningful ways, pay raises are not tied to performance,
employees are not satisfied with policies and practices of senior management.

Figure 5. Positive percentages for EVS organization questions over 65%

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

47

Figure 6. Positive percentages for EVS organization questions 65% and lower

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Pay raise based on performance
Poor performers dealt with
Performance recognized
Satisfied with policies/practices
Promotions based on mert
Have enough resources
EVS improve NPS
Creativity/innovation rewarded
Leaders generate motivation/commitment
Reasonable workload
Training needs assessed
Recognized for quality
Work unit skill level improving
Recruit right people
Leaders maintain honesty/integrity
Managers review goal progress
Leaders support Work/Life programs
Opportunity to improve skills
Promote diversity
Awards tied to performance
Leader provides constructive suggestions
Actions for partisan political purposes not
Encouraged to improve
Good physical conditions
Talents used well
Worthwhile performance discussions w/leaders
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

48
Table 4
Assumed Organization Causes
EVS Question EVS Score
Promotions based on merit 4%
Poor performers dealt with properly 31%
Satisfied with policies and practices of upper management 54%
Differences in performances recognized in meaningful ways 35%

Knowledge, motivation and organizational gaps help researchers to determine where a
problem stems from, in an attempt to understand the issue. Additionally, determining the type of
gap assists researchers in providing solutions. For example, an organizational problem can be
fixed by adjusting company policies while knowledge problems can be solve with simple
communication. For this study, researchers had to reconcile how communication, efficacy,
leadership and accountability relate to knowledge, motivation and organizational gaps. Table A1
(Appendix A) shows how the literature relates to the framework.
Based on the literature, communication and accountability were the factors that were
most in alignment with the gap analysis framework. When the EVS was analyzed, there were a
few other assumed causes that fell under knowledge and organization. However, a majority of
the assumed causes of low employee satisfaction fell under motivational causes of the
framework. Therefore motivation causes will be carried forward as the main category for
assumed causes.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

49
Gap Analysis Step Five
The fifth step is to validate the causes. In order to validate the assumed causes, a method
called triangulation was used. Using one set of data to draw a conclusion leaves room to be
influenced by outside effects and therefore, is not reliable. Rather, triangulation uses multiple
points of data to yield the same results in order to increase confidence in the findings.
Triangulation also compensates for flaws in the methods used to obtain data from the other two
points. Data centered on employee satisfaction at Picturesque Park were recorded and validated
by using: observations from the facilitated meeting, document analysis and phone interviews
with employees who were present at the meetings.
Observation of facilitated meeting. Researchers travelled to Picturesque Park to
observe a workshop facilitated by NPS Organization Development consultants. The two days of
workshops began with meeting with the management team, followed by a meeting with
employees. The second day began with an employee meeting and a follow-up management team
meeting. Each meeting consisted of welcoming remarks, introductions, purpose of the meeting,
an analysis of the EVS data, group action planning and closeout. Researchers who attended the
meeting had previously reviewed the EVS data and the literature to support solutions to the
possible causes.
The observation protocol was used to make sure the observer captured as much pertinent
information as possible about the workshop (see Appendix D). The observation began by noting
the physical space of the workshop. Next, the participants were noted: demographic information,
roles, and actions of the participants. The observer took note of the group interactions, individual
actions, which participants were passive and which participants were active. Observations were
just the first glimpse into understanding reasons for low EVS scores. The observer took note if
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

50
the causes were identified properly and were based in the EVS results, or if the participants were
discussing other issues not related to the EVS that they thought were the causes. If the
participants were discussing other issues, researchers noted if it was because the other issues
were not covered by the EVS. The observer listened carefully to the connections the participants
made between the causes and solutions, noting how solutions were decided upon. Careful
attention was paid to how the group decided upon solutions, if the solutions logically flowed
from the causes or were not connected to the causes.
Action plan. Towards the end of the facilitated meetings, Picturesque Park employees
were asked to create action plans in small groups. Employees were instructed to come up with
actionable items that if implemented, would improve employee satisfaction. Plans were charted
by employees and shared with the rest of the group. Researchers used these plans to help
triangulate possible assumed causes in conjunction with the facilitated meetings and interviews.
Interviews. The interview questions covered Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model
of knowledge, motivation and organizational barriers (see Appendix E). Interviews consisted of
seven questions around three main areas. The first section centered on the interviewee’s
perspective regarding the group’s determination of the causes of low employee satisfaction. The
goal was to see if the interviewee agreed or disagreed with what the group decided was the
cause, and if the interviewee had other insights to share. The second section questioned the
interviewee’s confidence in the ability of the employees to complete the plan set forth at the
workshop. The third section focused on the perceived causes of low employee satisfaction as
framed by Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis.
At the end of the facilitated meetings, the facilitator asked all employees who were
present to approach the USC researcher if they were interested in participating in a follow-up
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

51
interview. Those who were interested filled out an index card with contact information. All
employees who turned in a card were contacted by email that night and asked to provide a
convenient time within one week for the follow-up interview to occur. Only employees who
responded to the email were contacted. Seventeen employees participated in these individual
interviews. The interviews were recorded if the individual provided permission. Interviewees
were asked their thoughts about three main topics: the workshop’s outcomes, achievability of
goals set at the workshop and causes of the EVS results.
Data analysis. EVS survey results along with the literature review were used to identify
assumed causes. Quantitative methods began when researchers attended the facilitated meetings
and conducted interviews to listen for themes that aligned with assumed causes. The responses
to seven interview questions were analyzed against the causes observed at the park meeting.
Additionally, the information from the action plans were cross-checked with reoccurring themes
from the facilitated meeting and interviews for similarities. Information gathered from the
facilitated meeting, action plans and interviews was analyzed in order to find knowledge,
motivation and organizational barriers and provide solutions to close the employee satisfaction
gap.
Gap Analysis Steps Six and Seven
The last two steps of the gap analysis framework are: implementing solutions and
evaluating the solutions. Empirical research was consulted and the findings were used to create
an implementation plan based on recommended solutions. The consulted research will be
described in Chapter 5. Included in this chapter will also be the implementation plan that
includes solutions for the validated causes.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

52
Table 5
Assumed Causes Based On the EVS
Assumed Causes EVS Score
Knowledge
Want training needs assessed 60%
Motivation
Want to feel a sense of personal empowerment 30%
Want to be recognized for their work 50%
Want better Job opportunities 43%
Want to be more involved in decisions 27%
Organizational
Want promotions based on merit 4%
Want poor performers dealt with properly 31%
Want to be satisfied with policies and practices of upper management 54%
Want differences in performances recognized in meaningful ways 35%
Want pay raises tied to performance 4%

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

53
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
For the past decade, the Office of Personnel Management has used the EVS to survey
federal government employees to inquire about their work environment perceptions. The NPS
consistently ranks low amongst the total 82 agencies that participate in the survey. In 2013, the
NPS decided to follow up with specific parks to identify issues and actions, based on their EVS
scores. This study analyzed knowledge, motivational and organizational causes for low
employee satisfaction at Picturesque Park that were discussed in Chapter 3. Research questions
that guided the study were:
1. What are the causes of the gap between the current level of employee satisfaction at
Picturesque Park and the NPS desired level?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
Findings and Results for Knowledge
The assumed knowledge cause generated by an examination of the research literature and
the park’s EVS results include employees want: more training, more information to do their jobs
well and to know what is expected. However, the assumed cause was not validated by the
observations. Instead, employees raised the concern about information management provides
about the organization and communication of park priorities as possible causes.
Findings from Facilitated Meetings
Employees indicated that they want only information that is specific to their work.
The concern is that information is not filtered, but rather all information is reported to employees
even if the information does not affect the employees. One participant remarked:
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

54
They include us in all the discussions of the up and downs of the budget and they bring us
into the day-to-day dilemmas of management — makes us feel like we are on the crazy
train. They need to filter it, give us the broad direction instead of complaining about
everything with Congress. It doesn’t help our jobs to know the ups and downs of the
budget.
Another employee added, “Stop burdening us with a whole lot of administrative problems. It gets
a guy down.” Yet another employee remarked:
We don’t need to know all the nitty-gritty of the budget on the federal level. It gets to be
overwhelming and we should be protected from some of it until it really matters. If it
matters outside the park, protect us. But if it matters from inside the park, it should be
transparent.
In the facilitated meetings, employees asserted the need to be kept informed with
changing park priorities in order to do their jobs in accordance with the direction the park is
headed in. The two concerns employees asserted were: park priorities change and priorities are
not aligned well. Employees believed that management changes priorities every 6-8 months but
does not communicate the new priorities to the staff. One employee said, “Be clear and timely
about park priorities. Communicate priorities as they change.” Another employee remarked,
“Priorities seemed to change and no one knew about it until it was too late.” Additionally,
employees’ perspective is that the priorities chosen are not the right ones. “Management is too
wrapped up in administrative things or building new buildings to make sure the park’s natural
resources are protected and the public is being appropriately served.”
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

55
Findings from the Action Plans
The action plans did not consistently reiterate any of the assumed causes. The need for
more training was not mentioned by any group. Overall the groups wanted more information but
the specific information that was asked for varied by group. Two groups mentioned wanting
more information to do their jobs well and knowing what is expected. In the action plans,
employees requested better communication between supervisors/management and work groups.
One group asked for increased communication in the form of adding opportunities to meet and
connect. The second group wanted to be informed of events around the park, that may affect
how other employees complete their work. Additionally, the second group wanted to be made
aware of changing priorities that can trickle down and affect individual employees’ work. Only
two groups briefly mentioned the need for better communication, not making increase
communication a major focus point of the action plans.
Findings from Interviews
Employees expressed a need for clearer goals and expectations. One employee spoke
of the lack of straightforward, clear and pertinent information needed to do his job:
I need feedback and direction and guidance and priorities from management and trying to
get a straight answer and not just from one person but for different people in the
management group to agree and have consensus. So I can have one goal to work on
without changing too much within reason. Management can have us know what is
expected of us and not have that change too much.
In another example, an employee discussed his perception that new standards for evaluation were
implemented but not communicated to the staff, however, employees were still held accountable
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

56
for the new standards. Another employee spoke of the frustration, “Some of us were rated on
standards that we weren’t even informed we were being graded on.”
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Information shared in the observations and interviews did not validate the assumed cause
regarding skills for which employees need further training. Instead, the causes in the validation
process focused on knowledge gaps. In the observations, employees expressed a concern about
not being informed about information specific to their work, which is in line with the EVS
question regarding employees having enough information to do their job (75%). Only two of 12
actions plans mentioned wanting increased communication with management, which was not
enough of a concern from the groups to validate the cause. The interviews elaborated on
employees’ perceptions regarding how managers and supervisors communicate, from feedback
and direction to how new information is disseminated. Employees would like to receive
information that affects their jobs in a timely manner.
Additionally, the observations and interviews showed that employees want clearer goals
and expectations. Specifically employees want to be informed as park priorities and goals
change, or when criteria for performance appraisals change, Employees wanting clearer goals
aligns with the EVS question about employees knowing what is expected of them on the job
(84.4%). Again, only two of 12 action plans mentioned increased communication with
management, not signaling a huge concern. Since the information found in the observations,
action plans and interviews did not align, none of the assumed knowledge causes were validated.
In the following sections, employee concerns center around opportunities to communicate
(process) as opposed to requests for specific information (content). Therefore, although requests
for information in the knowledge section were not validated, employees’ concerns are related to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

57
needs in the upcoming motivation and organization sections and eventually included in the
implementation plan.
Table 6 shows the validated knowledge causes. The last section in Table 6 includes other
emerging causes that originally were categorized under motivation. Employees began to share at
the facilitated meetings, in the action plans and interviews what originally appeared as
motivation issues but were caused by a lack of employee knowledge. A discuss of employees’
concerns via the facilitated meeting, action plans and interviews will be discussed in the
following motivation section, however the validated causes were included in Table 6.

Table 6
Validated Knowledge Causes
Facilitated Meetings Action Plan Interview
EVS assumed causes
Training needs
Other knowledge emerging causes
Want enough information to do the
job well
X X
Want to know what is expected X X
Other emerging causes
Want to know they have autonomy
to complete their work
X X X
Want to know they are recognized
for their work
X X X
Want to be know they are part of
the decision-making process
X X X

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

58
Findings and Results for Motivation Causes
The assumed motivation causes generated by an examination of the research literature
and the park’s EVS results include employees want: to feel empowered, to be recognized, to
have fair job opportunities and to be involved in decision-making.
Findings from the Facilitated Meetings
Employees want to feel a sense of personal empowerment in the work place.
Employees raised the issue that a lack of autonomy in their jobs was a cause for concern. One
employee stated, “We have a lot of experience, and then to be second-guessed by someone who
sits in an office, really takes away a lot of that respect.” Another employee said, “There’s a
general feeling that not only do we not have independence, but we’re not being rewarded for
being creative nor do we get rewarded for doing a good job.” Another employee wondered
about repercussion, “And even if I’m empowered, and I make that decision, will I be penalized?”
Yet another employee said, “I’m told what to think — that I’m too busy or not busy enough. I
don’t have to open my mouth. The other person does all the talking. We’re being told how to do
the job and what to use.” The last comment was:
In my job I do a lot of research. Occasionally I’m told what those findings should be
before I do the evaluation. Why pay me when you tell me what’s important? So I get a lot
of push back from the regional office who oversee the reports I do who say why did you
come up with those findings?
Employees want to be recognized. Employees were concerned when peer-to-peer
awards were lost last year due to budget constraints. These awards enabled employees to
recognize another peer as a way to show appreciation and the recipient would get a gift card to a
local establishment. Employees expressed a concern with the way the awards were changed —
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

59
instead of restricting the award to eliminate the monetary aspect, the awards were stopped. One
employee said, “Peer appreciation awards could be restructured better but it was taken away. It
was an effective way for peers to express appreciation.” Without peer-to-peer awards, the only
form of recognition is evaluations. However, evaluations have not been used as rewards.
Performance evaluations awards are being given out in other parks but have not been in
Picturesque Park.
Employees want a fair process for furthering their career. They are interested in
applying for higher ranking jobs at the NPS but feel curtailed by what they perceive as unfair
hiring practices, such as: highly qualified applicants are passed over, veterans not given a
preference, nepotism, the position is not advertised and when it is advertised, there is a quick
turnaround. One employee stated, “Identify opportunities for advancement, fairly create
opportunities for hope. Positions open up and they don’t advertise to the rank and file. Get more
transparent human resource practices.”
Employees want to be involved in the decision-making process with organizational
decisions. Employees want to have an opportunity to provide suggestions based on their
expertise and knowledge but report management responds with, “We don’t have time, we don’t
want to hear it, it’s already done.” Another participant noted, “Because management is not open
to opposing viewpoints, all the valuable information needed to make a good decision is not taken
into account when decisions are made.” An employee pointed out, “When we give feedback, it’s
dismissed or met with criticism and then there’s repercussions.”
Employees report that monthly meetings were started between management and the
supervisors below them. These meetings were in addition to quarterly meetings that included all
employees. Both were an effort to improve communication. However employees do not feel
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

60
more involved or that communication has improved because communication goes one way, from
the top, down. Employees want reciprocal lines of communication. One employee said, “The
meetings sounded good. We still have these meetings, which I hate because it’s turned into
management telling supervisors what to do. There’s very little two-way discussion or even
information sharing. It’s one-way.” Another employee chimed in with, “Take a second look and
assess its effectiveness. Good first steps.” Another employee said, “Management is trying very
hard to communicate but they dictate.” Motivation is diminished when employees do not feel
heard or part of the discussion.
Additionally, employees see meetings in a negative light because of the overall message.
Employees walk away from meetings feeling down. One employee said, “Quarterly meetings are
good in theory but doing them differently would help. The budget climate right now — having
to know all the negative details — it could be more of a morale boosting interaction.”
At the end of the sessions, management and both groups of employees were asked to
choose three of the 14 indexes that would make the biggest positive difference. Each person
provided their three choices and each index was tallied. Effective Leadership-Empowerment
Category was voted #1 by two groups. Performance Based Rewards & Advancement was voted
in the top three by two of the three groups.
Findings from the Action Plans
Many of the action plans included empowerment, recognition and decision-making.
There were three action plans that included empowerment in the title. However, some items in
the action plans were misfiled under empowerment and really were requests to be involved with
decision-making. Groups requested that management allow employees to work out details of
tasks on their own. Employees asked for staff to be rewarded and recognized. One group asked
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

61
for daily/weekly recognition of employees through the use of technology. Other plans requested
more progress reports and feedback. One suggestion was to recognize seasonal employees as
these employees are important to the park. Employees often included being a part of decision-
making their action plans. A suggestion was to solicit input through open channels. Employees
want their input to be recognized, valued and incorporated into decisions. Other groups
requested management to be verbally supportive of employees’ suggestions. Groups requested
that management share decisions with employees. The only assumed cause that did not show up
in the action plan was the concern about unfair hiring practices.
Findings from Interviews
Employees want to feel empowered. For example, they want the freedom to choose
how and when to get their work done. One employee stated:
But it’s all about them telling us what to do, all the time. Then changing their minds, all
the time. I can’t decide on my own when I’m free to do other projects and when I’m not.
I’m told. You must be busy! I can’t get to decide when I’m available to do other parts of
my job. I can’t decide if I’m available or not even though my schedule says I’m free.
The topic of recognition also surfaced in the interviews, with employees needing to
be recognized. One employee stated, “The performance-based rewards were stopped because of
the sequestration and that hurt some of the employees’ morale. This type of recognition would
help people to feel more empowered.” Other employees did not specifically mention peer-to-
peer awards but mentioned simple things such as a pat on the back.
Employees want to be involved in decision-making. One employee stated:
A lot of voices just aren’t heard. I’m not asked what I think and when I am asked, I don’t
feel comfortable sharing my opinions, for fear of not wanting to criticize too much or
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

62
rock the boat too much. I have some worries that it could affect how management sees
me or what they think of me as an employee. Overall, I don’t feel like my opinion would
be considered worth much.
Issues with the meetings surfaced consistently in the interviews. One employee said, “The
meeting style is an issue that management can fix by having more collaborative meetings. The
meetings with the supervisors are supposed to be for training purposes. Management calls it a
roundtable but it’s really a lecture.” Another employee agreed:
I feel like they are pretty counterproductive. They make me feel like I have low morale
when I leave them. They are called supervisor roundtable meetings, but it’s just the
opposite, it’s really not a roundtable at all. It’s a joke that it’s called that, because it’s not
a roundtable.
One participant said:
Even if you give your opinion, you are completely ignored. And that’s another thing the
park has to stop doing, they somehow equate more meetings with communication. That’s
not the case. Just because you held more meetings, doesn’t mean any real communication
took place. It’s just more people telling us what to do, without caring what we think.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Observations, action plans and interviews all validated three of the assumed causes:
empowerment, recognition, and involvement in decision-making. Data from the facilitated
meetings revealed that employees want the independence to complete their work how they deem
fit, want to be recognized for their work, want fair hiring practices, and want management to
listen to their ideas when making decisions. Action plans asked for: management to allow
employees to work our task details on their own, recognition to happen daily/weekly, and open
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

63
channels to allow for employee input with decision-making. Interviews showed employees wish
to have more autonomy over how their work gets done and be involved in decision-making.
Employees would like to have more recognition for their work, whether it is through peer-to-peer
awards without the monetary prize or simple verbal positive reinforcement. However, the desire
for opportunities for a better job did not show up in the interviews. Therefore because only the
facilitated meetings validated fair hiring practices, three validated causes will be carried forward:
empowerment, recognition, and involvement in decision-making. Table 7 shows the validated
motivational causes.

Table 7
Validated Motivational Causes
Facilitated Meetings Action Plans Interviews
EVS Assumed Causes
Want to feel empowered * * *
Want recognition * * *
Want job opportunities X
Want to be involved in decision-
making
* * *
*Three assumed causes that were validated in this chapter: employees want to feel empowered,
recognized and involved in decision-making were re-categorized as knowledge issues and appear
in the previous chart (Table 6) because employees were experiencing each cause not as a
motivational issue, but rather from a lack of knowledge.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

64
Findings and Results for Organizational Causes
The assumed organizational causes generated by an examination of the research literature
and the park’s EVS results include employees wanting: promotions based on merit, poor
performers dealt with appropriately, differences in performances recognized in meaningful ways,
pay raises tied to performance, and to be satisfied with policies and practices of senior
management.
Findings from Facilitated Meetings
From the facilitated discussions, the following needs were expressed by participants,
employees need: fair promotions based on merit, a trusting relationship with their leaders, and a
manager who listens to them. Employees also mentioned they want pay raises.
The employees want their workload to be reflected in their pay. With respect to
adequate compensation, employees understood that the superintendent has very little control over
pay raises. Their concern focused on employees being asked to do more while the pay remains
the same. They observed that there has been an increase in responsibilities but it is not reflected
in the pay. One employee stated, “Management should find a way to have more of an incentive
to continue to add to your work plan with fewer resources.”
Employees want a fair system that allows for rewards based on good work. In the
Park Service, employees do not get promoted from within. Rather, employees must apply for a
different position to receive a promotion. One employee remarked, “We know there’s nothing
else more — there are no promotions. We get into this negativity. There is not expectation for
growth. It’s a dead line. Factory workers.” This type of system has a negative impact on
employee motivation because employees are not rewarded for working hard. There are no
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

65
promotional awards for any level of effort, creating a negative incentive to be productive, in turn
impacting employee satisfaction negatively.
Employees want a trusting relationship with management. Some employees were
glad the Picturesque Park management volunteered to be studied regarding low employee
satisfaction. However, employees were not confident conditions would improve and did not
trust that management would consider their thoughts in an effort to change. One employee said,
“Hard to believe this isn’t just a drill. I can’t believe anything is going to come from this.”
Another employee stated, “In the past 15 years, this is the 5
th
time I’ve done this. Absolutely
nothing has changed.” Yet another employee said:
Getting together divisions like this is to talk is beneficial to us and I hope the message to
management is we took three hours to give inputs so they should at least take the same
amount of time to give it consideration and if not, there should be follow up.
When all groups were asked to choose three indexes that would have the most positive
change, there was little consensus. The Work/Life balance Index was chosen second place by
two groups. The Training/Development Index was chosen third place by two groups (tied for
third place in one of the groups). Effective Leadership-Leader Index was chosen first place by
one group and third place by another group.
Findings from the Action Plans
None of the action plans included fair promotions based on merit. The action plans
included creating a trusting relationship with management. Groups simply asked to trust
managers and to be trusted by managers. However, the plans were brief and did not include any
other details regarding trusting relationships with management.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

66
Findings from Interviews
Employees need interactive time to better discuss constructive criticism, rather than
a one-way directive. One employee said, “Management makes their rounds but it could be done
differently because they are not engaging. Instead, they make a ten-minute appearance and when
they leave, I get a list of things to fix. It’s a big downer.”
The interviews also validated the cause of merit-based promotions. Employees want
promotions to be based on merit. One employee said:
In private business in the real world if you show initiative and do a great job, you are
going to get promoted. That just does not happen in the Park Service. If you are a WG8
and you perform at an exceptional level, you are not going to be promoted to a WG9 or
WG10. It’s just not going to happen. That’s the way the system is designed. You have to
apply for a new job, if one comes open, you just don’t get promoted from within. That’s a
depressing factor for many people and it causes people to not work beyond the minimum
required because they know it doesn’t matter.
Employees want fair workloads. Employees discussed the increase in responsibilities
without a fair increase in wage. For example, one participant said:
One serious issue is some very diligent employees’ jobs tend to expand because they are
so good at their jobs so they end up doing high level work for low level pay. Especially in
the professional jobs that have higher skills than they are being paid for and the system
can’t keep up with rewarding them fairly.
Another participant said:
I’m not officially a supervisor, nowhere in my job description does it say that I’m a
supervisor, yet every year I hire people, supervise them and perform the evaluations. I’m
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

67
supposed to sign forms as a supervisor. My supervisor has had over a decade to change
my status and whenever I bring it up, she says the deputy superintendent said it’s not a
good time. I’m expected to do all the things supervisors do but I’m not considered a
supervisor.
Many interviewees want a trusting relationship with their leaders. Employee
motivation is affected by a lack of fairness in the workplace. One employee said:
Managers employ people like myself to provide professional advice on things but if they
don’t like what we tell them, they just ignore them. They break laws and they tell you
they are not breaking laws. If you get a legal opinion confirming they are breaking the
law and the response is that management is confused about the law. They play this game
where they do whatever they want and make up a lame excuse as to why they are doing
it.
One employee was looking for honesty from management. It was expressed that sometimes
integrity is questioned when the honest information is not shared, but rather employees feel a
cover-up is created to try to trick them:
Sometimes the reasons are political and management is caught between a rock and a hard
place. We understand that a park manager has to make a bad decision because of the
politics of it but don’t turn around and try to convince us it’s a good decision. Be honest
and tell us it is not in the best interest but there’s no other choice. They try to pretend
something is something when it’s not. They don’t fool anybody.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Organizational Causes
According to the EVS, there were five assumed causes, however none of the initial
assumed causes was validated by the facilitated meetings, action plans and interviews.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

68
Employees’ voices in the facilitated meetings, action plans and the interviews repeatedly
expressed concerns about wanting a trusting relationship with management. Employees said
management does not ask for opinions and makes employees feel like their ideas are not worth
much. Employees want to be heard when speaking with management and also during meetings
where the setup is said to be round-table but felt more like a lecture. Interviewees want a trusting
relationship with management. When looking at the EVS data, trust and confidence in a
supervisor showed 70% positive rating. Although the item was scored above the 60% mark and
was not an initial assumed cause, based on the repeated concerns, the cause was included. Table
8 shows the validated organizational causes.

Table 8
Validated Organizational Causes
Facilitated Meetings Action Plans Interviews
EVS assumed causes
Want promotions based on merit X X
Want poor performers dealt with
properly

Want to be satisfied with policies
and practices of upper management

Want differences in performances
recognized in meaningful ways

Want pay raises tied to performance X
Other emerging assumed causes
Want trusting a relationship with
management
X X X

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

69
Re-categorizing Validated Causes
Upon closer examination, some causes originally categorized into knowledge, motivation
and organization may belong in a different category. When causes were analyzed closely, it was
determined that the issues originated from other gaps. Although some of the assumed causes
appeared in the EVS as motivational causes, as researchers followed up, Picturesque Park
employees were asking for information, which is more knowledge related. The way the assumed
cause was written in the EVS as motivational concern, was different than the way the employees
were experiencing it. All the issues categorized under the motivation gap are truly knowledge
gaps because knowledge provides the foundation for motivation. For example, the issue of
employee recognition was first categorized under motivation, however upon closer examination,
this issue reflects more of a gap in knowledge. Employees believe they are not receiving
feedback and therefore do not know if and when they are doing what is expected.
“Empowerment” is another knowledge gap as employees believe they do not have the authority
to make work-related decisions. Employee involvement in the decision-making process is also a
knowledge concern. Employees want to know their voice is heard and management is taking
into consideration employees’ suggestions.
Conclusion
The facilitated meetings, action plans, and interviews validated that the employees want:
to feel empowered, to feel recognized, to be involved in decision-making, and to have a trusting
relationship with the management team. Table 9 shows the validated causes. Chapter 5 will use
the validated causes and include an implementation plan with research-based solutions.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

70
Table 9
Validated Causes for Knowledge, Motivation and Organization
Facilitated Meeting Action Plans Interviews
Employees want to feel empowered X X X
Employees want to feel recognized X X X
Employees want to be a part of the
decision-making process
X X X
Employees want a trusting relationship
with the management team
X X X

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

71
CHAPTER 5
SOLUTIONS
This chapter will take a closer look at the assumed causes validated in Chapter 4 by the
facilitated meetings, action plans, and follow-up interviews. The purpose of this chapter is to
offer research-based solutions to the validated causes. As stated previously, the Clark and Estes
(2008) Gap Analysis conceptual framework will be utilized to assist in systematically address
employee satisfaction gaps at Picturesque Park. In a full gap analysis, solutions for all the
validated causes would be addressed. However, due to the scope of this dissertation, validated
causes will be prioritized and only those identified, as top priorities will be addressed.
Validated Causes Selection and Rationale
Assumed causes for low employee satisfaction at Picturesque Park were developed from
the research literature and the EVS results. Data from the observations, action plans, and follow-
up interviews were used to validate those causes. A cause was considered “validated” if the
same issue found in the EVS was brought up in the observations, action plans and the follow-up
interviews. Triangulation yielded four validated causes, employees want to: feel more
empowered, be recognized, be a part of the decision-making process, and establish a trusting
relationship with the management team.
Solutions for Knowledge Causes
There are three validated causes that fit under the knowledge category: employees want to
be: recognized, empowered, and involved in the decision-making process. As discussed in
Chapter 3, Anderson et al. (2001) identify four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge is the “what,” such as terminology and
specific details and elements. Conceptual is the “why” such as classifications, categories,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

72
principles, generalizations, theories, models and structures. Procedural is the “how,” such as
subject-specific skills and methods and criteria for deciding procedures. Metacognitive is about
knowing “when” to use their procedural knowledge and being aware of self-knowledge.
Factual Knowledge
Recognition — employees want to be recognized. Employees at Picturesque Park want
to know from their supervisors that their work is valued. Recognition would let employees know
they are doing a good job, whether it be a way to acknowledge their work formally or an
informal pat on the back from a supervisor. According to employees, the peer-to-peer awards
were removed last year due to budget cuts but were spoken of repeatedly in both the facilitated
meetings and interviews. Data collected from the facilitated meetings, action plans and
interviews showed employees were more interested in being acknowledged than in receiving a
monetary reward.
The category of recognition falls under in the EVS is the Performance-Based Rewards
and Advancement Category. However, the validated cause for Picturesque Park is employees
want to be recognized for their work. Rewards and recognition are different concepts. The term
rewards is sometimes used to encompass both reward and recognition. According to Milne
(2007) both ideas are used to reinforce organizational values, distinguish achievement and
encourage continuous learning. However, rewards are associated with compensation, for
example pay or monetary bonuses. Monetary rewards such as pay can be increased with a
promotion, which can motivate a worker to focus away from contributing to the overall goals of
the organization and on his or her own gains. Recognition is a non-financial award awarded to
show appreciation for either a certain type of behavior or accomplishment (Milne, 2007).
Recognition is a way to acknowledge effort, commitment and learning and celebrate success
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

73
regardless of if the goal was achieved (Milne, 2007). Leaders can show recognition with
positive feedback and a simple, “thank you.”
The challenge of communicating recognition to employees is not specific to Picturesque
Park. Podsakoff, Podsakoff and Kuskova (2010) found inconsistencies between management
and employees across America. In a Gallup poll reported in the early 2000s, 65% of Americans
reported no recognition or praise in the past year. In a more recent Gallup poll, more than
47,000 respondents from 116 countries ranked feedback, recognition and praise at the bottom of
a 12-item assessment of employee engagement (Crabtree, 2011). Employees do not feel their
progress is discussed and they do not feel they are praised or recognized for doing good work.
However from a leader’s perspective, there are inconsistent reports. Gostick and Elton (2007)
reported that, when surveyed, many leaders believe they are delivering an adequate amount of
recognition to their employees. There seems to be a common organizational issue across the
globe regarding the disconnect between leaders who believe they are recognizing their
employees and employees who do not feel recognized for their work.
Saunderson (2004) states organizations can use recognition to show they care for
employees. Additionally, recognition contributes to employee morale, employee sense of
belonging, increased commitment, increased satisfaction and retention. Providing recognition
creates employees who are committed to the organization (Dasgupta, Suar, & Singh, 2012).
Additionally, Saunderson (2004) describes three key areas of recognition that are important for
organizations and could be useful in the redesign of the recognition system, including everyday
recognition, informal recognition and formal recognition. Everyday recognition lets managers
acknowledge the day-to-day contributions and reinforces more formal recognition. Informal
recognition can be created through activities that have a social aspect that builds camaraderie,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

74
such as a potluck after completing a project. Everyday recognition includes feedback and praise.
Formal recognition can be an award nominated by either a manager or a peer and provide
financial and human resource support.
There are many key principles behind a reward and recognition system. Liff (2007)
found employees should have a part in developing and implementing the program. Additionally,
when the system is rolled out, publicity and presentation are key to informing employees in the
organization about the available rewards. Keeping employees informed of the results and
expectations results in a reliable system. Liff (2007) describes the most effective systems have
rewards closely aligned with the organization’s mission and objectives. Also, the magnitude of
recognition should be aligned with the actions/products for which the employee is responsible.
Podsakoff et al. (2010) agree and state the reward and behavior should correspond. Providing
timely recognition is another important aspect. Liff (2007) states that creating a reliable
recognition system that responds promptly to employees’ work is the most effective way to
encourage ideal behavior. Podsakoff et al. (2010) echo the concepts by recommending timely
recognition that is administered contingently.
Employees’ concern surfaced as peer-to-peer awards that were accompanied with a gift
certificate were discontinued due to budget cuts. However, Picturesque Park can still focus on
recognizing employees with non-monetary rewards. Govindarajulu and Daily (2004) suggest
providing employees with creative rewards such as favored parking. Additionally, because
employees favor praise from supervisors and colleagues, Picturesque Park can consider printed
certificates, personal letters from management, and recognition in a newsletter.
Implementation. The main concern of the employees at Picturesque Park is they do not
feel recognized for their work. Picturesque Park is similar to other organizations as employees to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

75
not feel recognized for desired behaviors while managers believe just the opposite — they are
recognizing employees. Knowing how common this miscommunication is, it is important for
management at Picturesque Park to work towards closing the current knowledge gap.
Based on the research identified, the proposed solution for addressing factual knowledge
gap is to establish a recognition system at Picturesque Park. Including employees in the creation
of a recognition system will help employees feel valued. Therefore, forming a recognition
committee that includes managers and employees is ideal. The committee is an opportunity for
employees and managers to collaborate. Since the committee is made up of members from
various levels at the park, members can solicit ideas from their peers who may feel comfortable
sharing and providing suggestions for the recognition system.
This committee will be tasked with collaborating on create ways to recognize employees
in meaningful ways that match not only the task but also align with organizational objectives.
The new system will ensure recognition includes opportunities for formal, informal and everyday
recognition. Recognition will be park specific with little to no funding for awards, therefore the
committee must be creative in identifying recognition methods. Some cost free ways to show
appreciation to employees include: preferred parking, personal letters, printed certificates, and
mention in a park bulletin or newsletter. Once the system is set up, the committee will meet each
month and be tasked with ensuring employees are recognized on a regular basis perhaps at
monthly employee meetings or other organized method.
Involvement in decision-making. A second factual knowledge issue that surfaced in the
data at Picturesque Park was that employees want to be a part of the decision-making process.
Employees want their opinions to be solicited, respected, valued and ultimately used when
decisions are made. When decisions are finalized, employees want to be informed of the decision
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

76
100% of the time. Additionally, employees want to be informed of the reasons behind the
decision that are being made.
Picturesque Park employees’ needs regarding involvement in decision-making stem from
a lack of information. Employees want information communicated before, during and after
decisions are made. Many employees shared during the facilitated meetings and interviews that
they want to feel valued as it affects employee motivation. Having their ideas solicited and
sometimes incorporated into the park’s decision-making process signals to employees that
leaders value them. Additionally, employees would like to have their ideas received by
management in a positive and professional way.
Participative decision-making refers to transferring some decision-making control and
responsibilities to subordinates that is otherwise within the role of a superior (Parnell, 2003).
Probst (2005) explains that participative decision-making does not suggest employees have
control to change large workplace issues, rather employees can have more control to make
changes to their job tasks and increase their understanding in organizational decision-making.
Power is often viewed as finite and some managers may be apprehensive about the participative
approach for fear of increasing power to subordinates as it is seen as a decrease of power to
managers. However, Parnell (2001) found managers saw an increase in overall influence in
return for a loss in power. Additionally, managers who shy away from participative practices
foster an indecisive culture in their organization.
Probst (2005) studied 807 employees from a six steel manufacturing companies located
in the US and China. Each worker filled out a Workplace Environment Survey that included
measures of demographic information, job security perceptions; co-worker, supervisor and work
satisfaction; work withdraw behaviors, intentions for turnover and opportunities for participative
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

77
decision-making. Probst (2005) found increased levels of participative decision-making weaken
the negative effects of job insecurity. When participative decision-making opportunities were
perceived to be low, job insecurity was linked to lower coworker, supervisor, and work
satisfaction, and higher turn-over intentions.
Providing opportunities for participative decision-making is the first step but being
cognizant about how leaders receive input is also important. Interpersonal justice refers to the
way leadership treats employees during a formal decision-making process, more specifically, the
extent to which leadership treats employees with politeness, dignity, sensitivity, consideration
and respect (Bies & Moag, 1986). Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, and Ng (2001) found if a
leader’s behaviors are not aligned with interpersonal justice, employees’ dignity and self-worth
may feel diminished. Rather, organizations that engage in communication that is open,
trustworthy and honest can expect employees’ self-worth to improve (Colquitt et al., 2001).
The types of styles managers use to communicate with employees include: passive,
assertive and aggressive (Dasgupta et al., 2012). Aggressive communication happens when
managers state their opinions but violate employee rights at the same time. Aggressive managers
attack or ignore opinions of employees and do not build relationships with employees. Passive
communication occurs when managers do not express their message fully but rather prioritize
retaining their power and in the meantime, cause hiccups in progress and also irritation.
Assertive communication entails managers expressing their thoughts while staying respectful of
employees. Assertive communication includes honesty, openness, tolerance and objectivity.
Assertive managers create a collaborative, humane working environment (Dasgupta et al., 2012).
A manager’s supportive communication style that encourages a safe environment for
employees to share, affects more than just a work environment. Employee satisfaction with
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

78
communication affects employees socially and emotionally (Gray & Laidlaw, 2004). A manager
who is perceived to have a supportive communication style builds relationships with employees
(Madlock, 2008) and increases job autonomy (Peccei & Rosenthal, 2001). Managers who
encourage employee participation and show a willingness to listen to employees improve
employee self-esteem which leads to organizational commitment, (Gaertner, 1999; Silverthorne,
2004).
Employees want the process of decision-making at Picturesque Park to be fair and
transparent. Procedural justice refers to the fairness in the decision-making process (Folger &
Konovsky, 1989). The focus of procedural justice shifts from what the decision is to how to
decision was made. Leventhal’s (1980) theory describes six criteria procedures should follow in
order to be perceived as fair: (1) applied consistently across people and time, (2) bias-free,
(3) collect accurate information to be used in decision-making, (4) have a procedure in place to
correct bad decisions, (5) abide by existing standards of ethics, (6) include opinions of all
affected groups. Using procedural justice criteria ensures outcomes are predictable (Judge &
Colquitt, 2004). When procedures do not pass the six criteria, resentment, anger and irritation
may prevail (Barclay, Skarlicki & Pugh, 2005).
Transparency is a type of decision-making that allows for public input. Transparent
decision-making allows for others to witness the actions that are occurring. In this way,
transparency allows for sound decision-making, avoiding abuse and corruption (Haque,
Pathrannarakul, & Phinaitrup, 2012). Estlund (2010) states that transparency is a building block
for a self-regulated system. Estlund (2010) found when mandatory disclosure is built into the
system, organizational reliability increases due to enforcing self-regulation.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

79
Implementation. Employees at Picturesque Park want to be included in the decision-
making process. More specifically, employees want to feel their concerns and suggestions are
being heard by the management team. The knowledge problem is based on a disconnect between
employees who do not feel their ideas are not being solicited and management who feels they are
listening to concerns from employees. Based on the research identified, the proposed solution
for addressing the knowledge gap is to create an opportunity for all employees to be heard by
establishing participative decision-making. Management can share decision-making power with
employees and employees can fully involve themselves in the process to take full advantage of
participative decision-making. Setting aside time during all employee meetings to listen to
employee suggestions regarding park decisions will show employees that Picturesque Park’s
management team values their thoughts. Creating participative decision-making at Picturesque
Park will automatically create transparency with decision-making as employees become more
than just witnesses to the process which ensures sound procedures.
When employees are included in the process and begin to share their thoughts, they need
to be candid, helpful and open-minded. In order to encourage employees to share their honest
thoughts, suggestions should be received in a safe environment that is polite, sensitive, respectful
and considerate. Management may consider assertive communication, which will allow
managers to share important information surrounding the decision while respectfully listening to
employees. The goal is to maintain an emotionally stable environment for all while still moving
towards achieving goals. When decisions are finally made, disclosure is important to improving
transparency. Managers can set aside time during all employee meetings to discuss decisions
that were made and the reasoning behind the decisions will help to clarify information to
employees.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

80
Metacognitive Knowledge
Personal empowerment. The metacognitive knowledge issue that surfaced is employees
want autonomy when it comes to how their tasks are completed. Employees at Picturesque Park
assert there is a lack of empowerment in their work environment. During facilitated sessions,
employees at Picturesque Park expressed the desire to have the power to determine how and
when to complete their assignments within goals set by management.
Within the concerns voiced Picturesque Park employees, two big ideas arose:
empowerment and autonomy. These ideas are types metacognitive knowledge that is defined by
Anderson et al. (2001) as the knowing “when” to use their procedural knowledge and being
aware of self-knowledge. Although very much related, autonomy and empowerment are
different. Autonomy is the amount of discretion employees have over important decisions such
as timing and how tasks get done (Parker, Axtell, & Turner, 2001). Carter (2009) defines
empowerment as, “the process through which managers enable and help others to achieve
influence within the organization” (p. 41). According to the previous definitions, empowerment
is on a grander scale where employees have influence on the organization while autonomy is
when employees have influence over their own work.
Autonomy is an important feature of job satisfaction and motivation (Parker et al., 2001).
Langfred and Moye (2004) discovered that motivation, information provided and structural
features of a task affect autonomy, which in turn affects performance. Langfred and Moye
(2004) suggest managers should use a specific framework to determine whether an employee
should be granted autonomy on a given task. The framework includes various aspects: (1) how
much task-specific knowledge the employee has; (2) the complexity of the task; (3) the
interdependent nature of the task; (4) the variability of the task; (5) the degree of formalized rules
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

81
surrounding the task and; (6) the procedures defining the task. Once the information is gathered,
managers can then decide to grant employees autonomy or not.
Conger and Kanungo (1988) formally define empowerment as “a process of enhancing
feelings of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identification of conditions
that foster powerlessness and through their removal by both formal and organizational practices
and informal techniques of providing efficacy information” (p. 474). While the previous
definition is a more general one, other researchers have more specific ideas when it comes to the
public sector. Fernandez and Moldogaziev (2011) defines public service empowerment “as a
means for improving the quality of public services and unleashing the creative talents of public
employees” (p. 26).
Conger and Kanungo (1988) propose empowerment as a motivational construct, where
managers stop delegating and begin to enable employees. The five stages of a process to
improve empowerment includes: (1) an environment with factors leading to psychological state
of powerlessness; (2) managers begin to use empowerment strategies; (3) removing conditions
that contribute to powerlessness; (4) employees begin to feel empowered; (5) employees begin to
put forth greater effort and persistence with new feelings of empowerment.
Clark and Estes (2008) state “organizations will continue to face profound, complex, and
persistent change” (p. 2), and investing in workers to solve problems is key. Most employees are
not in situations where the work is standardized and problems do not arise. Workers who are
considered the most valuable are those who can shift along with changing conditions.
Organizations who view workers as capital, invest performance improvement products such as
training (Clark & Estes, 2008).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

82
Fernandez and Moldogaziev (2011) studied employees in federal agencies focusing on
performance and four empowerment practices: providing information about goals and
performance, offering rewards based on performance, providing access to job-related knowledge
and skills and granting discretion to change employees’ work processes. Findings show
providing access to job-related knowledge and skill has the most substantial affect. Providing
training gives employees opportunities for innovation. Employees with more knowledge and
skill are better equipped to diagnose problems and find solutions. Findings also show granting
discretion to change employees’ work processes also significantly affects empowerment.
Discretion can improve performance as employees can quickly correct errors, use flexibility to
tailor services to the needs of clients or act in creative ways. Fernandez and Moldogaziev (2011)
found managers who provide discretion and training allow for full benefits of empowerment.
Fernandez and Moldogaziev (2011) echoes similar findings, fond allowing employees
discretion was not the only or most effective technique to empowering employees or improving
performance. Rather, offering professional development opportunities have a significant effect
on perception and performance. When employees gain more knowledge and skill, they are better
able to problem-solve their way through their work (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2011). Clark
and Estes (2008) add knowledge serves as a foundation for motivation by adding value and
importance, which results in choice, persistence and mental effort.
Once employees have the training needed, organizations can begin sharing power.
Fernandez and Moldogaziev (2011) discovered in order to maximize empowerment, managers
can increase opportunities for professional growth as well as share authority. Kirkman and
Rosen (1999) found sharing power can improve empowerment. When employees receive
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

83
knowledge, skills and are granted discretion, perception and performance improve (Fernandez &
Moldogaziev, 2011).
Peters and Manz (2007) discovered the more that top management wants an internal
commitment from its employees, the more it must involve employees in defining work objectives,
specifying how to achieve them and setting stretch targets. When employees are more involved
with management, ownership of goals begins to form. Peters and Manz (2007) discusses the
importance of individuals taking ownership for team goals. Individual focus shifts from
individual contributions to larger team goals. When employees are empowered, shared values
make certain all individuals are working towards the same goal (Carter, 2009). Peters and Manz
(2007) found once employees have a shared goal understanding, individuals begin to make an
effort to contribute to the overall goal. Teams begin to rely on individuals and each other for
solutions. Employees start to see their contributions as larger goals, rather than individual efforts.
Implementation. Employees want to feel empowered and have the autonomy to complete
their work. Specifically, employees want to have control over how and when they complete their
work. However, management may not feel comfortable simply allowing employees discretion in
completing their job. Steps must be taken before management grants more independence to
employees to do their tasks. The proposed solution for improving employee motivation is to
increase autonomy by addressing knowledge gaps with training. Management may be more
inclined to increase employees’ autonomy if assured employees have the knowledge and skill set
to complete required tasks. Langfred and Moye’s (2004) framework suggests that managers
determine the amount of task-specific knowledge an employee has before deciding if autonomy
should be granted to an employee. As a first step to allowing employees to have more
autonomy, management can provide training to employees to close knowledge and procedural
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

84
gaps. To make sure learning took place, trainers can visit employees at their work sites after the
training to provide individual coaching. Additional coaching will close any remaining
knowledge gaps. Once training is complete, employees will have the skills to problem solve
their way through an ever-changing work environment leading management to feel more secure
with employee knowledge base. Once training is complete and management is assured
employees have the right knowledge and skill, employees can be granted discretion to complete
their work.
Management can also engage employees in defining work objectives to increase
involvement. Providing employees with the power to create work goals, brainstorm ways to
achieve the objectives and set stretch targets will empower employees to not only be involved,
but also feel more committed and take ownership.
Solutions for Organization Causes
Culture
Trusting relationship. An organization’s culture affects many facets of the
organization. According to Clark and Estes (2008), “work culture is present in our conscious
and unconscious understanding of who we are, what we value, and how do we what we do as an
organization” (p. 107). Based on this explanation, managers create cultures based on what they
value. Clark and Estes (2008) also describe culture by involving beliefs about the value of
collaboration and group processes.
The final issue is employees want to establish a trusting relationship with supervisors and
the management team. Employees at Picturesque Park asserted that they do not have a trusting
relationship with their supervisors and the management team. Some employees claimed they do
not trust management when it comes to explaining decisions that are made. Others stated
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

85
managers do not trust employees’ professional advice. Several employees asserted that
management gives employees more work but never acknowledges the increased workload.
Idealized influence, one of four components of transformational leadership, begins with
creating trust between leaders and followers. A successful leader knows trust is one of the most
important aspects (Podsakoff et al., 1990; Yukl, 2002). Leaders gain influence by conducting
themselves in a fashion that respects, admires and trusts followers (Bass, 1998). When followers
believe leaders behave as role models by relentlessly doing what is right and exhibiting high
moral and ethical standards in their actions, trust is built (Bass, 1998). Leaders build trust with
followers by expressing concern for followers’ needs, respecting agreements, demonstrating
persistence in achieving the vision, and eagerly sacrificing for the benefit of the group
(Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996).
Gillespie and Mann (2004) studied 33 project teams in a large, public research and
development organization in Australia to determine which leadership practices impacted an
employee’s trust in their leader. One transformational leadership behavior, idealized influence
had a significant contribution towards trust between employees and leaders. Specific behaviors
include: communicating a collective vision based on important values, consulting employees
during decision-making. Gillespie and Mann (2004) discuss when leaders share common values,
employees believe leaders will conduct themselves according to those values. Also, a common
vision helps to align actions of both leader and employee towards shared goals. Additionally,
when leaders consult employees during decision-making, employees feel valued because their
leader values their views and needs. Shared values, goals and consultation during decision-
making decrease uncertainty about a leader’s behavior in the future show the leader will not
violate trust. When employees feel confident in their leader, employees are more willing to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

86
participate in trusting behaviors such as revealing sensitive information or depending on the
leader’s judgment (Gillespie & Mann 2004).
Northouse (2012) echoes the findings of Gillespie and Mann (2004) explaining a trusting
relationship can be built between employees and leaders by creating and articulating a clear
vision. After a clear vision is articulated, the trick is to make it a shared vision. Organizations
can transform a vision into a shared vision by aligning employees’ personal values and interests
with those of the group (Jung & Avolio, 2000). Creating a shared vision motivates employees to
accomplish the vision and improves trust, which in turn affects employee satisfaction (Jung &
Avolio, 2000).
Northouse (2012) adds the importance of improving the quality of information shared and
having open communication with creating a trusting relationship. Sharing information that is not
only timely, but accurate and relevant increases trust (Thomas et al., 2009). Thomas et al. (2009)
found the willingness of employees to exchange ideas being positively associated with trust and
involvement between peers, supervisors and top management. Positive interpersonal
communication includes the sharing of useful instruction and helpful advice (Jo & Shim, 2005).
Kim (2002) discusses a similar strategy called participative management. This style
includes all members of an organization, despite their role in the hierarchy, to have shared
influence. When implementing strategic plans, employees are seen as key stakeholders.
Together, managers and employees play a role in information-processing, decision-making and
problem-solving. Effective communication is key to implement participative management.
Johlke and Duhan (2000) echo the sentiment, adding bidirectional communication is a necessity.
Managers can make sure communication goes two ways is to seek out, value and act upon ideas
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

87
and suggestions from employees. Organizations can be sure to have open communication with
employees and improve the quality of information shared.
Trusting relationships between employees and leaders impacts the way employees
perceive interactions with leaders. Holtz and Harold (2008) studied 203 employees at a large
North American university to determine the relationship between trust and justice perceptions.
Employees were asked to think of a recent and specific situation they made a request or proposal
to their manager and their manager declined their request. Participants rated the adequacy,
legitimacy and sincerity of the response to their requests. Holtz and Harold (2008) found
employees’ level of trust affected the way the employee perceived the manager’s explanation as
adequate, legitimate and sincere. Employees who trust their managers have a tendency to feel
treated politely and with respect. When an explanation from a manager is viewed as adequate,
legitimate and sincere, employees are more likely to believe the reasoning behind the decision is
reasonable and procedures used to arrive at the decision are fair. Additionally, findings suggest
employees are less likely to react negatively to unfavorable news when they trust their managers.
Employees who trust their managers are more comfortable expressing concerns to their managers
and therefore do not need to use other outlets to vent.
Implementation. Employees want to have a trusting relationship with leaders.
Specifically, employees want to be able to trust in what leaders say and do. Additionally,
employees want to be able to honestly and openly share their thoughts with leaders. There are
proposed solutions for management to consider in addressing the gap. Having open, accurate,
timely and honest communication is key to developing a trusting relationship (Thomas et al.,
2009). During supervisor and all employee meetings, management can communicate a shared
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

88
vision and shared values. When both employees and leaders are working towards a shared vision
operating under shared values, a sense of trust develops.
During the meeting, employees can be provided an opportunity to provide honest input
regarding decisions that are being made. Additionally, during meetings, transparency can be
achieved by decisions being clearly explained to all employees with time allowed for
clarification to be achieved. When provided opportunities to share input or seek clarification
bout decisions that are made, employees need to approach the opportunity with an open mind.
Additionally, employees should take advantage of the occasion with honest and productive
feedback.
In an effort to improve communication, representatives from all levels can form a
committee to discuss the kind of information employees want shared and how. When the
committee meets employees can volunteer to represent their coworkers and candidly and
sincerely share ideas that would help to improve the dissemination of information across the
park. Ideas such as online bulletins, morning meetings with supervisors and email blasts can be
decided on.
Table 10 summarizes the validated causes, research-based solutions and how the
literature suggests to implement the solutions as discussed in this chapter.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

89

Table 10
Summary of Validated Causes, Solutions and Implementations
Validated Causes Solutions Implementation
Employees want the power to
complete work how they
deem fit without management
stepping in (knowledge).
Management can allow
employees to have autonomy
when appropriate.
Employees can be involved in
setting goals.
Management will provide
appropriate training to
employees. Employees will
help management set work
objectives, ways to achieve
goals and create targets.
Employees feel there is a lack
of formal and informal
recognition (knowledge).
Create informal, formal and
everyday recognition. Allow
employees to have a part in
developing it.
Align mission and objectives
with recognition, prompt
recognition, nonmonetary
rewards.
Employees feel they are not
included in decision-making:
opinions are not asked for,
valued, nor respected.
Decisions are not made
transparent (knowledge).
Management can practice
transparency tactics and share
power.
Employees will be provide
opportunities to share input
and suggestions during
meetings.
Employees want a trusting
relationship with their
supervisor and management
team (organization).
Increase trusting relationship
between management.
Managers seek out, value and
act upon ideas and
suggestions from employees.
Create mandatory disclosure
in the system.
Share vision, increase
communication, increase
quality of information shared.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

90
Implementation Plan
The organizational goal of the implementation plan is to increase the EVS ratings by
20%. The three supporting goals include: employees and management team will develop a
trusting relationship, employees’ motivation will improve and employees will be recognized for
their work. When closely looking at the solutions to the validated causes, many themes are not
just interconnected, but also overlap. For example, when management works on transparency, it
will improve trusting relationship and also make employees feel more empowered and involved
in decision-making. Providing appropriate recognition to employees will encourage employee
motivation. When management begins to adopt the solutions, the plan as a whole will support
smaller goals and help move the entire plan in a positive direction. Solutions to the prioritized
findings were proposed with an implementation plan for the management team. Table 11 shows
the implementation plan.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

91
Table 11
Implementation Plan
Organizational goal: Improve EVS ratings by 20% by improving employee satisfaction at Picturesque Park.
Current positive EVS scores is 73% for knowledge, 64% for motivation and 61% for organization. The goal is to
increase each category by 20% to 88% for knowledge, 77% for motivation and 72% for organization. The goal
minus the current percentages leaves the organizational gaps at: 15% for knowledge, 13% for motivation and 11%
for organization.
Goal 1: Employees and the
management team will develop a
trusting relationship.
Goal 2: Employee motivation will
improve.
Goal 3: Employees will be
recognized for their work
Cascading goal 1:
Communication will be open,
accurate, timely and honest with
idea exchanges between
management and employees
happening in a positive space.
Cascading goal 2:
Employees will use autonomy to
complete their work which will
improve employee motivation.
Cascading goal 3:
Employees will be recognized with
formal, informal and everyday
recognition.
Performance goal:
Beginning July 2014, during each
supervisor and all employee
meetings, time will be set aside for
employees to have an opportunity
to openly provide honest input with
decisions being made.
Performance goal:
In July 2014, employees will attend
training to close knowledge and
procedural gaps ensuring
employees have task-specific
knowledge for their responsibilities,
supporting employee autonomy.
Performance goal:
In July 2014, an all employee
meeting will be held to gain
employee input on a new
recognition system and set up a
committee comprised of both
management and employees to
create a system.
Performance goal:
Beginning July 2014, a committee
with representatives from all levels
will meet to collaborate and decide
on what information employees
want shared and ways information
can be shared in a timely fashion
and implement ideas (online
bulletin, morning meetings, email
blasts).
Performance goal:
In August 2014, trainers will visit
employees at their work site a two
to four weeks after the training to
provide individual coaching as a
way to close any lingering
knowledge and procedural gaps.
Performance goal:
Beginning August 2014, the
recognition committee will put into
place a system that includes formal,
informal and everyday recognition
with input from the all employee
meeting as incorporating ideas from
the committee.
Performance goal:
Beginning July 2014, during all
meetings (supervisor and all
employee meetings) transparency
with decision-making will be
achieved by setting aside dedicated
time for leaders to clearly explain
decisions and employees provided
the opportunity to seek clarification.
Performance goal:
Beginning July 2014, employees
will set work objectives, include
ways to achieve the goals and create
stretch targets.
Performance goal:
Beginning September 2014, the
committee will meet once a month
(a total of 12 meetings in the year)
to ensure rewards are awarded
timely and correspond with
employee action.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

92
Conclusion
Chapter 5 examined the validated causes as triangulated by the facilitated meetings,
action plans and follow-up interviews. Prioritized findings included, employees wanted to: feel
empowered, be recognized, be involved in decision-making and have a trusting relationship with
leaders. When Picturesque Park management focuses on closing these performance gaps,
employee satisfaction is expected to improve. Proposed solutions focused on improving
communication, increasing recognition, adding training, allowing for input and improving
transparency. Implementation of solutions focused on employees and park management with
goals supporting the larger goal of increasing EVS scores at Picturesque Park. Chapter 6 will
include: recommended evaluation, strengths and weaknesses of the approach, limitations, further
research and a final conclusion.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

93
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this case study at is to investigate causes of low employee satisfaction and
discover empirically-based solutions to help the leaders at Picturesque Park improve working
conditions for employees. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis was used as the framework
of this study to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the causes of the gap between the current level of employee satisfaction at
Picturesque Park and the NPS desired level?
2. What are the recommended solutions to address these causes?
3. How might these solutions be evaluated for effectiveness?
Chapter 6 will include: synthesis of the results, a discussion of the strengths and
weaknesses of the approach, recommendation implications, how the plan will be evaluated,
limitations of the study, suggestions for future research and finally, a conclusion.
Synthesis of Results
This study used a mixed methods approach, including quantitative survey results coupled
with qualitative observations and interviews. Based on the triangulation between the facilitated
meetings, action plans and the follow up interviews, validated causes of low employee
satisfaction are: empowerment, involvement in decision-making, recognition and trusting
relationships with supervisors and management team.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The gap analysis model by Clark and Estes (2008) is a research-based approach that
identifies causes of performance gaps and implements matching performance solutions. The
framework examines the human causes that originate in the performance gaps: knowledge,
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

94
motivation or organizational causes. Additionally, the framework includes an evaluation step,
which leads implementers to assess progress towards performance goals and redirects the process
back to step one if the goals are not met. The gap analysis model gives ownership to individuals
and teams, sets high expectations, and provides feedback and recognition to employees.
Due to the high expectations set forth by the model, a weakness of the model is the
commitment needed to create, execute and follow through with the implementation. The time
and effort needed to properly follow the complex framework can be daunting to organizations.
Implementing a model can be difficult without the proper knowledge as the model can be very
specific in nature when it comes to creating appropriate goals for performance gaps.
Additionally, sticking to the model and using only appropriate research-based solutions, rather
than any plausible solution, can be difficult to follow.
Evaluation
Evaluation is an essential part of the gap analysis process. Evaluation is a process that
provides an objective viewpoint when assessing performance gap progress (Clark & Estes,
2008). Without the important step of systematic evaluation, leaders are left to guess and use
their own impressions to decide the effectiveness of the implementation plan (Clark & Estes,
2008). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) evaluation model will be used as the framework to
recommend evaluating the impact of the implementation plan. The evaluation model has
benefitted various organizations across different cultures and countries for nearly half a century
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) model is designed for those in the training field who
want to increase effectiveness via evaluation. There are four levels to Kirkpatrick’s and
Kirkpatrick’s (2006) evaluation model: reactions, learning, behavior and impact.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

95
Level 1: Reactions
Level one measures reactions of the participants to the new solutions. Trainers want to
inquire about initial thoughts of participants, for example if they like and value the training and
also how comfortable participants feel implementing their new learning in the work place.
Checking reactions can be done with a few simple open-ended or close-ended questions before,
during or after training (Clark & Estes, 2008). A positive reaction from participants is ideal,
although it does not guarantee new learning (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Results from
level 1 simply state the motivational impact the training had on the participants.
By the end of July, 2014, Picturesque Park will hold an all employee meeting where the
implementation plan will be announced. Following the announcement, an anonymous, Likert
scale survey will be administered to gauge reactions. Since the implementation plan is in line
with the employees’ concerns, positive reactions are anticipated. However, reactions of the
management team are harder to predict. This survey will be administered in the middle and the
end of the implementation plan process.
Level 2: Learning
Level two focuses on the extent to which the participant’s attitude, knowledge and or
skill changes from the training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Building practice into the
training can help participants learn and transfer new learning to their jobs (Clark & Estes, 2008).
How trainers examine the learning that takes place should match the type of training. For
example, if the training focused on procedural knowledge, the trainee would actually perform the
procedure while a trained observer checks to see if the procedure is performed accurately
complete (Clark & Estes, 2008).
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

96
The implementation plan is expected to address the knowledge and organizational causes
of low employee satisfaction. Beginning in July 2014, an assessment of employees’ task related
knowledge gaps will be determined. Shortly thereafter, professional development addressing
task-based needs of employees will take place. Trainers can check to see if the newly imparted
information has impacted trainees with pre- and post-tests. The objective of providing training
and individualized assistance is for the management to ensure employees’ task-based knowledge
is strong, and management can feel confident allowing for employees to have autonomy over
work-related decisions. Simultaneously, employees will create work objectives, ways to achieve
the objectives and set stretch targets for themselves.
It is expected employees’ task-based knowledge will increase. The expectation is with an
increase in employee task-based knowledge, management will allow an increase in employee
autonomy.
Level 3: Transfer
Level three focuses on behavior change of the participant as a result of the training.
Level three checks to see if new learning is sustained after the program is complete (Clark &
Estes, 2008). For change to occur, four circumstances must be present. According to
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006), the person must: (1) have a desire to change, (2) know what
to change and how to change, (3) work in the right climate, and (4) be rewarded for their change.
The third circumstance refers to a participant’s immediate supervisor. A supervisor can create
five different climates for employees: (1) supervisors prevent the participant from implementing
changes from the training, (2) supervisors make it clear implementing changes from the training
is looked down upon or does not model training behavior, (3) supervisors do not acknowledge
the training or subsequent behavior change, (4) supervisors encourage behavior change due to
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

97
the training and follows up with participant, and (5) supervisors require participants to show
behavior changes due to the training.
Two weeks to a month after the professional development, trainers can visit employees at
their work sites to observe if the information of the training transferred into the work setting.
Additionally, employees clarify any information or ask specific questions regarding their
individual tasks. The mid-point survey will be administered at this point to determine how
comfortable employees feel giving input in meetings and to assess the effectiveness of the
recognition system.
It is expected that a follow up visit by trainers will be effective, as the visitation and
consultation will be on an individual level. Additionally, is it anticipated employees will begin to
feel comfortable sharing in meetings and the recognition system will be satisfactory.
Level 4: Results
Level four determines the final occurrences due to the attendance and participation in the
training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). The ultimate goal is to see if the training impacted
organizational goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008). Although having tangible results such
as improved quality, higher profits and reduce turnover is the hope, affecting non-tangible
aspects such as higher morale or a better work life is also ideal (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2006). Level four is recommended if two conditions are met (Clark & Estes, 2008). First, since
each level builds upon each other, level four should be checked only if there is evidence of
change in the second and third levels. Second, level four should be implemented if the
organization is willing to implement change in order to improve the bottom line.
The third and final survey will be administered and compared to the results of the first
and mid-point surveys. Additionally, since the organizational goal is to improve employee
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

98
satisfaction as noted on the EVS, another EVS will be administered from park officials (not
federal officials). The hope is that overall scores will improve by 20%.
Employee satisfaction is expected to begin improving fairly quickly after the plan is
implemented as employees begin to feel communication, trust and motivation improve.
However, specific changes may take longer. For example, for doubtful employees to believe in
the changes, or for a solid, trusting relationship between employees and the management team to
form could take years.
Limitations
There are a few key limitations to this study. First, because the data collected is very
specific to the employees at Picturesque Park, it would be difficult to generalize the data and
results to other parks or organizations. The park’s superintendent volunteered to be part of the
larger NPS study. Because Picturesque Park was not randomly selected, motivational reasons
should be accounted for and overall results may differ from those of a randomly selected park.
Interviewees were volunteers and their motives may have had an impact on the data collected.
Also, the percentage of employees who took the survey is unreported, making it difficult to know
the true voice of the survey results.
Vague language in the EVS, facilitated meetings, action plans and interviews could have
led to confusion. It is not clear who ‘supervisor’ refers to when employees took the EVS, took
part in the facilitated meetings and spoke in interviews. Depending on the rank of the employee,
the supervisor could be the middle management or the upper management, painting a hazy
picture for researchers. It is left up to the interpretation of the employee and also the researcher
to decide who the employee is referring to when speaking about a supervisor.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

99
Another factor that could have swayed the data was the situations affected by the
government’s financial situation, which has had a major impact on the National Parks. Budget
cuts have been in effect for years, followed by the government sequestration and finally the
government shutdown. The government shutdown that closed the park for 16 days had occurred
within three months of the facilitated meetings and interviews. These three events have created
many financial aspects that seem to be stacked up against employee satisfaction.
Future Research
Future research on employee satisfaction can be focused on employees in the public
sector. Much of the literature on employee satisfaction is based in the private sector, however the
mission match many public sector employees have with their organization does not always exist
with employees in the private sector. Private and public sectors often have differing goals — for
example, for-profit organizations often focus on increasing profits while government
organizations like the NPS have more of a humanitarian and environmental focus. There is a
body of research that focuses on private sector employee satisfaction affecting for-profits but less
research that focuses on how employee satisfaction in the public sector affects government
organizational goals. It may be of use for future research to quantify the outcome of high
employee satisfaction for public organizations.
In line with high employee satisfaction at public organizations, future research could
focus on the specific aspects of improving employee satisfaction. A list of factors that improve
employee satisfaction is important, but it may leave leaders unsure of ways to implement them.
While this paper focused on elements that can increase the satisfaction of employees,
leaders may find a clear roadmap describing how to achieve the elements that improve
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

100
satisfaction helpful. Basically, leaders may find it useful knowing “how” to implement elements
that improve employee satisfaction, rather than just “what” elements to implement.
Research that is specific to Picturesque Park could begin with increasing the sample size.
It would be beneficial to have included all employees of the park in the facilitated meetings, in
order to give everyone a chance to express their thoughts. Additionally, while including all
employees may be helpful, also creating numerous smaller groupings for the facilitated meetings
may encourage more employees to voice their concerns. Smaller groupings could also be chosen
so supervisors and employees would attend separately, creating a more comfortable environment
for employees to share.
Conclusion
Although the EVS has been administered in the NPS for over a decade, this year the NPS
took a closer look into why this organization consistently ranked in the bottom quartile amongst
the other federal agencies. Low employee satisfaction can have detrimental effects on the
collective efforts to uphold the mission of the NPS. In an effort to understand the results of the
EVS, low EVS scoring parks were chosen for further investigation. The NPS Office of Learning
and Development sent facilitators who paired with USC researchers (at certain sites) to examine
parks.
The purpose of this study was to look in-depth into one lower scoring park by analyzing
EVS data, observing facilitated meetings and interviewing individual employees and then pairing
the information with the gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008) in an effort to understand the
knowledge, motivational and organizational causes of low employee satisfaction. Using
research-based literature, solutions were found for triangulated, validated causes and an
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

101
implementation plan was created. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) evaluation plan was
suggested for follow-up use.
The validated causes include: employees want to be recognized for their work, be
involved in the decision-making process, feel more empowered, and establish a trusting
relationship with the management team. There are numerous solutions to the various validated
causes. A team including both management and employees can work to establish a new
recognition system that includes formal, informal and everyday recognition. In an effort to
decentralize decision-making, during meetings time can be set aside for management to explain
upcoming decisions to employees and provide time for input regarding decisions. Also, efficient
ways to disseminate important information in a timely fashion included transparent rationales to
decisions being made can be discussed between employees and management. Whenever
appropriate, management can provide employees training to improve their knowledge base.
When employees have the appropriate knowledge to complete tasks, management can have a
more hands-off approach to employees doing their work.
Communication, efficacy, leadership and accountability were all factors that affected
employee satisfaction at Picturesque Park. Employee satisfaction is a complex and consistent
struggle across all sectors and geographical regions. Organizations place a high value on
employee satisfaction due to impact it has on the work environment: employee performance,
retention, customer satisfaction and overall organizational effectiveness. High employee
satisfaction is also linked to lower absenteeism and turnover, which leads to decreased costs for
organizations. The hope is for the findings to be useful not only to improving employee
satisfaction at Picturesque Park, but also to other studies further exploring employee satisfaction.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

102
REFERENCES
Abbott, J. (2003). Does employee satisfaction matter? A study to determine whether low
employee morale affects customer satisfaction and profits in the business-to-business
sector. Journal of Communication Management, 7(4), 333-339.
Ainspan, N. D., & Dell, D. (2000). Employee communication during mergers. New York:
Conference Board.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Creikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich,
P. R., . . . Wittick, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon (Pearson Education Group).
Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. 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. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. (2005). Exploring the role of emotions in injustice
perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 629-643.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

103
Bender, K. A., Donohue, S. M., & Heywood, J. S. (2005). Job satisfaction and gender
segregation. Oxford Economic Papers, 57(3), 479-496.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness.
Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1(1), 43-55.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Breaux, D. M., Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2008). Politics as a
moderator of the accountability-job satisfaction relationship: Evidence across three
studies. Journal of Management, 35(2), 307-326. doi:10.1177/0149206308318621
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Burke, J. C. (2005). The many faces of accountability. In J. C. Burke & Associates (Eds.),
Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market
demands (pp. 1-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2011). Self-
efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationships
between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 27(1), 115-132. doi:10.1007/s10212-011-0069-2
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.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

104
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.
Carter, J. (2009). Managers empowering employees. American Journal of Economics and
Business Administration, 1(2), 41-46.
Chiok Foong Loke, J. (2001). Leadership behaviours: Effects on job satisfaction, productivity
and organizational commitment. Journal of Nursing Management, 9(4), 191-204.
Clampitt, P. G., & Downs, C. W. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship between
communication and productivity: A field study. Journal of Business Communication,
30(1), 5-28. doi:10.1177/002194369303000101
Clark, A. E. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour
Economics, 4(4), 341-372.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the
millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.
Crabtree, S. (2011, April 13). What your employees need to know. Gallup Business Journal.
Retrieved from http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/146996/Employees-Need-
Know.aspx
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

105
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cushman, D. P., & Craig, R. T. (1976). Communication systems: Interpersonal implications. In
G. R. Miller (Ed.), Exploration in interpersonal communication (pp. 37-58). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Darvish, H., & Rezaei, F. (2004). The impact of authentic leadership on job satisfaction and team
commitment. Management & Marketing, 6(3), 421-436.
Dasgupta, S. A., Suar, D., & Singh, S. (2012). Impact of managerial communication styles on
employees’ attitudes and behaviours. Employee Relations, 35(2), 4.
Donohue, S., & Heywood, J. (2004). Job satisfaction, comparison income and gender: Evidence
from the NLSY. International Journal of Manpower, 25, 211-234.
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. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/4355165
Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the two
dimensional model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7(1), 15-26.
Ellickson, M. C. (2002). Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government employees.
Public Personnnel Management, 31(3), 343.
Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 134-142.
Estlund, C. (2010). Just the facts: The case for workplace transparency. Stanford Law Review, 63,
351-407.
Falkenburg, K., & Schyns, B. (2007). Work satisfaction, organizational commitment and
withdrawal behaviours. Management Research News, 30(10), 708-723.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

106
Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2012). Principal self-efficacy: Relations with burnout, job
satisfaction, and motivation to quit. Social Psychology Education, 15, 295-320.
Fernandez, S. (2008). Examining the effects of leadership behavior on employee perceptions of
performance and job satisfaction. Public Performance & Management Review, 32, 175-
205.
Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2011). Empowering public sector employees to improve
performance: Does it work? The American Review of Public Administration, 41(1), 23-
47.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions
to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115-130.
Gaertner, S. (1999). Structural determinants of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in
turnover models. Human Resource Management Review, 9(4), 479-93.
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.
Gibson, J. L., & Klein, S. M. (1970). Employee attitudes as a function of age and length of
service: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Journal, 13(4), 411-425.
Gillespie, N. A., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The
building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 588-607.
Glenn, N. D., Taylor, P. A., & Weaver, C. N. (1977). Age and job satisfaction among males and
females: A multivariate, multi-survey study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 189.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

107
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.
Gostick, A., & Elton, C. (2007). The carrot principle: How the best managers use recognition to
engage their people, retain talent, and accelerate performance. New York: Free Press.
Govindarajulu, N., & Daily, B. F. (2004). Motivating employees for environmental
improvement. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(4), 364-372.
Gray, J., & Laidlaw, H. (2004). Improving the measurement of communication satisfaction.
Management Communication Quarterly, 17(3), 425-448.
Hain, T., & Downs, C. (1981). Productivity and communication. Communication Yearbook 5, 5,
435.
Hall, A. T., Zinko, R., Perryman, A. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Organizational citizenship
behavior and reputation mediators in the relationships between accountability and job
performance and satisfaction. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(4),
381-392.
Haque, S., Pathrannarakul, P., & Phinaitrup, B. A. (2012). Modernizing public sector
organization: Enhancing coordination and communication by the application of e-
government technology. International Journal of Independent Research and Studies,
1(4), 135-141.
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.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

108
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. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786077
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. UrbanEd, n.v.,
17-19.
Holden, E. W., & Black, M. M. (1996). Psychologists in medical schools — professional issues
for the future: How are rank and tenure associated with productivity and satisfaction?
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27(4), 407.
Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2008). When your boss says no! The effects of leadership style
and trust on employee reactions to managerial explanations. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 81(4), 777-802.
Humbolt State University. (n.d.). What can I do with a degree in Wildlife? Retrieved from
http://www.humboldt.edu/wildlife/wildcareers.html
Jex, S. M., & Bliese, P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related
stressors: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 349.
Jex, S. M., Bliese, P. D., Buzzell, S., & Primeau, J. (2001). The impact of self-efficacy on
stressor-strain relations: Coping style as an explanatory mechanism. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(3), 401.
Jo, S., & Shim, S. W. (2005). Paradigm shift of employee communication: The effect of
management communication on trusting relationships. Public Relations Review, 31(2),
277-280.
Johlke, M. C., & Duhan, D. F. (2000). Supervisor communication practices and service
employee job outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 154-165.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

109
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2007). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm
whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits — self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability — with job satisfaction
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80-92.
Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of
work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 395.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the
mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional
leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 949-964.
Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management
leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231-241.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences
of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58-74.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic
leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81(1), 36.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

110
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction:
Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology,
102(3), 741.
Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L., & Bong, M. (2010). Teachers’ collective efficacy, job satisfaction,
and job stress in cross-cultural context. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 464-
486.
Konrad, A. M., Ritchie Jr, J. E., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities
in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 593.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Koys, D. J. (2006). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and
turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel
Psychology, 54(1), 101-114.
Lam, C. S., & O’Higgins, E. R. E. (2012). Enhancing employee outcomes: The interrelated
influences of managers’ emotional intelligence and leadership style. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 33(2), 149-174. doi: 10.1108/01437731211203465
Langfred, C. W., & Moye, N. A. (2004). Effects of task autonomy on performance: An extended
model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89(6), 934-945.
Lee, R., & Wilbur, E. R. (1985). Age, education, job tenure, salary, job characteristics, and job
satisfaction: A multivariate analysis. Human Relations, 38(8), 781-791.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg,
& R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange theory (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum Press.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

111
Liff, S. (2007). Managing government employees: How to motivate your people, deal with
difficult issues, and achieve tangible results. New York, NY: AMACOM.
Lindell, M., & Rosenqvist, G. (1992). Is there a third management style? Finnish Journal of
Business Economics, 3, 171-198.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Skokie, IL:
Rand McNally.
Lucas, S. (2012, November 21). How much does it cost companies to lose employees?
CBSNews.com. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-
57552899/how-much-does-it-cost-companies-to-lose-employees/
Luthans, F., Zhu, W., & Avolio, B. J. (2005). The impact of efficacy on work attitudes across
cultures. Journal of World Business, 41, 121-132.
Mackintosh, B. (1999). The National Park Service: A brief history. Retrieved from
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/hisnps/NPShistory/briefhistory.htm
Madlock, P. E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and
employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 61-78.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Davis, L. M. (1982). Individual differences among
employees, management, communication style, and employee satisfaction: Replication
and extension. Human Communication Research, 8, 170-188.
McKnight, D. H., Ahmad, S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2001). When do feedback, incentive control,
and autonomy improve morale? The importance of employee-management relationship
closeness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(4), 466-482.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

112
Mercer. (2008). The total financial impact of employee absences. New York: Mercer. Retrieved
March 19, 2013, from http://www.kronos.com/absenceanonymous/media/mercer-survey-
highlights.pdf
Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (2011). Job level as a systemic variable in predicting
the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(3), 277-292.
Milne, P. (2007). Motivation, incentives and organisational culture. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 11(6), 28-38.
Mottaz, C. J. (1987). Age and work satisfaction. Work and Occupations, 14(3), 387-409.
National Park Service. (2008). Learning and development report to the National Leadership
Council. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S Department of the Interior.
Retrieved March 30, 2013, from http://inside.nps.gov/waso/waso.cfm?prg=63&lv=2
National Park Service. (2011). A call to action: Preparing for a second century of stewardship
and engagement. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior.
National Park Service. (n.d.). Mission. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/mission.htm
National Park Service. (2014a). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from
http://www.nps.gov/faqs.htm
National Park Service. (2014b). Work with us. Retrieved from
http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/workwithus.htm
Near, J. P., Rice, R. W., & Hunt, R. G. (1978). Work and extra-work correlates of life and job
satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 248-264.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

113
Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Randall, R., & Munir, F. (2009). The mediating effects of team and self-
efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job satisfaction and
psychological well-being in healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional questionnaire
survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1236-1244.
Norquist, M., Gilbert, M., King, R., Brown, R., & Clarke, P. (2002). A great place to shop, work
and invest: Measuring and managing the service profit chain at Sears Canada. Interactive
Marketing, 3(3), 255-261.
Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oshagbemi, T. (2003). Personal correlates of job satisfaction: Empirical evidence from UK
universities. International Journal of Social Economics, 30(12), 1210-1232.
Parker, L. (1994). The role of workplace support in facilitating self-sufficiency among single
mothers on welfare. Family Relations, 43, 168-173.
Parker, S. K., Axtell, C. M., & Turner, N. (2001). Designing a safer workplace: Importance of
job autonomy, communication quality, and supportive supervisors. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 6(3), 211.
Parnell, J. A. (2001). Rethinking participative decision making: A refinement of the propensity
for participative decision making scale. Personnel Review, 30(5), 523-535.
Parnell, J. A. (2003). Propensity for participative decision-making, job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and intentions to leave
among Egyptian managers. Multinational Business Review, 11(1), 45-65.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

114
Peccei, R., & Rosenthal, P. (2001). Delivering customer-oriented behaviour through
empowerment: An empirical test of HRM assumptions. Journal of Management Studies,
38(6), 831-57.
Peters, L. M., & Manz, C. C. (2007). Identifying antecedents of virtual team collaboration. Team
Performance Management, 13(3/4), 117-129.
Pettit, J. D., Goris, J. R., & Vaught, B. C. (1997). An examination of organizational
communication as a moderator of the relationship between job performance and job
satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 81-98.
Pincus, J. D. (2006). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human
Communication Research, 12(3), 395-419.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Boomer, W. (1996). A meta-analysis of the relationships
between Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role
perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 380-399.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., & Kuskova, V. V. (2010). Dispelling misconceptions and
providing guidelines for leader reward and punishment behavior. Business Horizons, 53,
291-303.
Porter, H., Wrench, J. S., & Hoskinson, C. (2007). The influence of supervisor temperament on
subordinate job satisfaction and perceptions of supervisor sociocommunicative
orientation and approachability. Communication Quarterly, 55(1), 129-153.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

115
Priya, S. (2011). A factor analysis of performance management system in a public sector
organization and its impact on job satisfaction among employees. Abhigydh, XXIX(3).
Probst, T. M. (2005). Countering the negative effects of job insecurity through participative
decision making: Lessons from the demand-control model. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 10(4), 320-329.
Rehman, M. S., & Waheed, A. (2011). An empirical study of impact of job satisfaction on job
performance in the public sector organizations. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, 2(9), 167-182.
Repanshek, K. (2012, December 13). National Park Service still lags in “best places to work”
survey of federal agencies. Retrieved from
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/12/national-park-service-still-lags-best-
places-work-survey-federal-agencies22574
Richards, L., Richards, M. G., & Morse, J. M. (2012). Read me first for a user’s guide to
qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ronen, S. (1978). Job satisfaction and the neglected variable of job seniority. Human Relations,
31(4), 297-308.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Salacuse, J. W. (2007). Real leaders negotiate. University Business, 10, 2-3.
Saunderson, R. (2004). Survey findings of the effectiveness of employee recognition in the
public sector. Public Personnel Management, 33(3), 255-275.
Service, N. P. (2008). Learning & development report to the National Leadership Council (Vol.
32). Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

116
Shaw, K. (2005). Getting leaders involved in communication strategy: Breaking down the
barriers to effective leadership communication. Strategic Communication Management,
9, 14-17.
Siassi, I., Crocetti, G., & Spiro, H. R. (1975). Emotional health, life and job satisfaction in aging
workers. Industrial Gerontology, 2, 289-296.
Silverthorne, C. (2004). The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit on
organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 25(7), 592-599.
Smith, M. (2013). CNN explains: Sequestration. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/politics/cnn-explains-sequestration/
Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and impression.
Communication Education, 32, 323-329.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1981). Self-monitoring and relational competence. Paper
presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention, Anaheim, CA.
Stecher, B. M., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons
for education from other sectors. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.
Stetz, T. A., Stetz, M. C., & Bliese, P. D. (2006). The importance of self-efficacy in the
moderating effects of social support on stressor-strain relationships. Work & Stress,
20(1), 49-59.
Stohl, C. (1984, May). Quality circles and the quality of communication. Paper presented at the
Speech Communication Association Convention, Chicago, IL.
Swiss, J. E. (2005). A framework for assessing incentives in results-based management. Public
Administration Review, 65(5), 592-602.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

117
Sy, T., Cote, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on
the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(2), 295-305. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.295
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 48, 227-236.
Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The central role of communication in
developing trust and its effect on employee involvement. Journal of Business
Communication, 46(3), 287-310.
Thoms, P., Dose, J. J., & Scott, K. S. (2002). Relationships between accountability, job
satisfaction, and trust. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(3), 307-323.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (n.d). 2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey results
FAQ. Washington, D.C.: Author: Retrieved from:
http://www.fedview.opm.gov/2012/FAQS/
Van Wart, M. (2003). Public-sector leadership theory: An assessment. Public Administration
Review, 63(2), 214-228.
Wang, X.-H. F., & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational
leadership on followers. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1134-1144.
doi:10.1037/a0020754
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.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

118
Wheeless, L. R., Wheeless, V. E., & Howard, R. D. (1984). The relationships of communication
with supervisor and decisionparticipation to employee job satisfaction. Communication
Quarterly, 32(3), 222-232.
Wood Jr, J. A., & Winston, B. E. (2005). Toward a new understanding of leader accountability:
Defining a critical construct. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(3), 84-
94.
Wright, B. E., & Davis, B. S. (2003). Job satisfaction in the public sector: The role of the work
environment. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 70-90.
Wright, J. D., & Hamilton, R. F. (1978). Work satisfaction and age: Some evidence for the ‘job
change’ hypothesis. Social Forces, 56(4), 1140-1158.
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.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior:
Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 9(1), 15-32.
Zellars, K. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., Miles, A. K., & Kiewitz, C. (2001). Beyond
self-efficacy: Interactive effects of role conflict and perceived collective efficacy. Journal
of Managerial Issues, 13(4), 483-499

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

119
APPENDIX A
LITERATURE ALIGNED TO STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK
Table A1
Communication Literature Aligned to Structural Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Andrews and
Kacmar (2001)
Performance feedback from
supervisors/ leaders is critical.
Clampitt and Downs
(1993)
Performance feedback from
supervisors/ leaders is critical.
Hargie et al. (2002) Face-to-face
communication.
Increased information flow.
Building trust.

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

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

Pettit et al. (1997) Supervisors need to provide
their employees with
appropriate and accurate info.
Porter, Wrench, and
Hoskinson (2007)
Supervisors that are
introverted and highly
neurotic may need training
to improve interpersonal
communication skills.
Supervisors that are
introverted and highly
neurotic dissuade
employees to approach
them and ask for
feedback and guidance
when necessary.
Potential supervisors with
approachable and extraverted
temperaments should be
promoted to positions of
leadership.
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

120
Table A1, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Shaw (2005) Communicator competence:
share and respond to
information in a timely
manner, actively listen to all
points of view,
communicate clearly and
concisely across the
organization and utilize
various communication
channels.

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

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

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

121
Table A2
Efficacy Literature Aligned to Structural Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Buckingham and
Coffman (1999)

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

Mayer (2011)

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

Canrinus et al.
(2011)

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

Caprara et al.
(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 et al.
(2006)

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

Federici and
Skaalvik (2012)

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

Gardner and Pierce
(1998)

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

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

122
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 et al.
(2010)

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

Luthans et al.
(2005)

General self-efficacy (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 et al.
(2009)

High team efficacy (individual’s perception of the
group’s collective ability to accomplish a task) minimizes
effects of individual team members with low self-efficacy
(an employee’s belief about 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 et al. (2001)

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

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

123
Table A3
Leadership Literature Aligned to Structural Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Bolman and Deal
(2008, p. 137)

Leaders who utilize a ‘human resource (HR)’ management
approach maximize both human capital and organizational
productivity. HR leaders show interest and compassion in
their employees’ well-being.

Darvish and
Rezaei (2004)

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

Fernandez (2008)

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

Jung and Avolio
(2000)

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

Lam and
O’Higgins (2012)

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

Madlock (2008)

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

Northouse (2012)

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.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

124
Table A3, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Wang and Howell
(2010)

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

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

125
Table A4
Accountability Literature Aligned to Structural Framework
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Breaux et al. (2008);
Ellickson (2002); Kim
(2002); McKnight,
Ahmad, and Schroeder
(2001)
Accountability coupled with
abusive leadership behavior
(verbal and non-verbal
hostility towards employees by
a direct supervisor) is
negatively associated with
employee satisfaction, whereas
when coupled with a close,
participative relationship
between supervisor and
employee leads to higher
employee satisfaction.
Durst and DeSantis
(1997)
The degree to which
employee talents are
utilized impacts
employee satisfaction.

Durst and DeSantis
(1997)
Social relationship with
coworkers impacts
employee satisfaction
and performance.

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

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

Ellickson (2002); Swiss
(2005); Yang and
Kassekert (2010)
Degree to which promotions
and rewards are merit-based,
rather than favoritism or
politics impacts employee
satisfaction and performance.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

126
Table A4, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Elmore (2005) Leaders who do not establish a
culture of reciprocal
accountability (e.g. leader does
not hold oneself accountable
for providing employees with
adequate training and
resources to perform
successfully) have employees
with less job satisfaction.
Fernandez and
Moldogaziev (2011)
Clarity of goals and
expectations impact both
employee satisfaction and
performance.
Attending to recognizing
employee performance levels
and achievements contributes
to employee satisfaction and
performance.
Degree of flexibility in
granting employees discretion
to change work processes
impacts employee satisfaction
and performance.
Fernandez and
Moldagaziev (2011);
McKnight et al. (2001)
The degree of timely
and accurate feedback
about performance
impacts employee
satisfaction and
performance.

Harrison, Newman and
Roth (2006); Westover
and Taylor (2010)
Employees who do not
identify with the
mission of the
organization or do not
feel their work is
important or valued
(also known as
organizational
commitment,
organizational
citizenship behavior,
and public service
motivation) have less
job satisfaction.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

127
Table A4, continued
Author Knowledge Motivation Organization
Thoms et al. (2002) Lack of trust when
combined with
accountability measures
results in lower
employee satisfaction,
whereas trust in one’s
supervisor and
perceived supervisor
awareness and
accountability resulted
in higher employee
satisfaction.

Yang and Kassekert
(2010)
Leaders’ and Supervisors’
examples impact employee
satisfaction and performance.

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

128
APPENDIX B
EVS NPS SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESULTS

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

129

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

130

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

131

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

132

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

133

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

134

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

135

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

136

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

137

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

138

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

139

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

140

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

141

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

142

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

143
APPENDIX C
2012 EVS SCORES FOR PICTURESQUE PARK & NPS
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item Knowledge Motivation Organization NPS PP
1 Employees are not given a real opportunity to
improve their skills in the organization.
X 59% 56%
2 Employees do not have enough information to do
their job well.
X 65% 75%
3 Employees do not feel encouraged to come up with
new and better ways of doing things.
X 59% 59%
4 Employee’s work does not give them a feeling of
personal accomplishment.
X 75% 72%
5 Employees do not like the kind of they work. X 87% 84%
6 Employees do not know what is expected of them
on the job.
X 75% 84%
7 When needed, employees are not willing to put in
the extra effort to get a job done.
X 97% 97%
8 Employees are not constantly looking for ways to do
their job better.
X 92% 90%
9 Employees do not have sufficient resources (for
example, people, materials, budget) to get their job
done.
X 31% 41%
10 Employees’ workload is unreasonable. X 43% 47%
11 Employees’ talents are not used well in the
workplace.
X 57% 61%
12 Employees do not know how their work relates to
the agency’s goals and priorities.
X 83% 84%
13 The work employees do is not important. X 92% 90%
14 Physical conditions (e.g. noise level, temperature,
lighting cleanliness) do not allow employees to
perform their jobs well.
X 66% 59%
15 Employees’ performance appraisal is not a fair
reflection of their performance.
X 66% 68%
16 Employees’ are not held accountable for achieving
results.
X 80% 84%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

144
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item Knowledge Motivation Organization NPS PP
17 Employees fear reprisal if they disclose a suspected
violation of any law, rule or regulation.
X 55% 63%
18 Employees’ training needs are not assessed. X 38% 50%
19 In employees’ most recent performance appraisal,
employees did not understood what they had to do to
be rated at different performance levels.
X 66% 69%
20 Employees’ coworkers do not cooperate to get the
job done.
X 70% 73%
21 Employees’ work unit is not able to recruit people
with the right skills.
X 40% 53%
22 Promotions in the work unit are not based on merit. X 32% 37%
23 In the work unit, steps are not taken to deal with
poor performer who cannot or will not improve.
X 28% 31%
24 In the work unit, differences in performance are not
recognized in a meaningful way.
X 31% 35%
25 Awards in the work unit do not depend on how well
employees perform their jobs.
X 43% 59%
26 Employees in the work unit do not share job
knowledge with each other.
X 69% 77%
27 The skill level in the work unit has not improved in
the past year.
X 50% 52%
28 Employees feel that the overall quality of work done
by their work unit is poor?
X 50% 97%
29 The workforce does not have the job-relevant
knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish
organizational goals.
X 67% 79%
30 Employees do not have a feeling of personal
empowerment with respect to work processes.
X 41% 30%
31 Employees are not recognized for providing high
quality products and services
X 46% 50%
32 Creativity and innovation are not rewarded. X 36% 45%
33 Pay raises do not depend on how well employees
perform their jobs.
X 15% 4%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

145
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item Knowledge Motivation Organization NPS PP
34 Policies and programs do not promote diversity in
the workplace (e.g. Recruiting minorities and
women, training in awareness of diversity issues,
mentoring).
X 51% 57%
35 Employees are not protected from health and safety
hazards on the job.
X 75% 93%
36 The organization has not prepared employees for
potential security threats.
X 55% 66%
37 Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and coercion
for partisan political purposes are tolerated.
X 50% 59%
38 Prohibited Personnel Practices (e.g. Illegally
discriminating for or against any
employee/applicant, obstructing a person’s right to
compete for employment..), are tolerated.
X 66% 80%
39 My agency is not successful at accomplishing its
mission.
X 70% 70%
40 I do not recommend my organization as a good
place to work.
X 67% 67%
41 I do not believe the results of this survey will be
used to make my agency a better place to work.
X 37% 44%
42 Employee’s supervisor does not support their need
to balance work and other life issues.
X 77% 83%
43 Employee’s supervisor/team leader does not provide
them with opportunities to demonstrate their
leadership skills.
X 67% 73%
44 Discussions with employee’s supervisor/team leader
about their performance are not worthwhile.
X 59% 64%
45 Employees’ supervisor/team leader is not committed
to a workplace representative of all segments of
society.
X 64% 65%
46 Employees’ supervisor/team leader does not provide
them with constructive suggestions to improve their
job performance.
X 56% 59%
47 Supervisors/team leaders in employee’s work unit
do not support employee development.
X 61% 76%
48 Employee’s supervisor/team leader does not listen to
what they have to say.
X 74% 73%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

146
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item Knowledge Motivation Organization NPS PP
49 Employee’s supervisor/team leader does not treat
them with respect.
X 77% 77%
50 In the last six months, employee’s supervisor/team
leader has not talked with them about their
performance.
X 77% 83%
51 Employees do not have trust and confidence in their
supervisor.
X 64% 70%
52 Overall, employees feel that their immediate
supervisor/team leader is not doing a good job.
X 65% 77%
53 In the employee’s organization, leaders do not
generate high levels of motivation and commitment
in the workplace.
X 38% 45%
54 Employee’s organization’s leaders do not maintain
high standards of honesty and integrity.
X 52% 54%
55 Managers/supervisors/team leaders do not work well
with employees of different backgrounds.
X 58% 65%
56 Managers do not communicate the goals and
priorities of the organization.
X 53% 69%
57 Managers do not review and evaluate the
organization’s progress toward meeting its goals and
objectives.
X 50% 56%
58 Managers do not promote communication among
different work units (for example, about projects,
goals, needed resources.)
X 46% 71%
59 Managers do not support collaboration across work
units to accomplish work objectives.
X 51% 78%
60 Employees do not feel that the manager directly
above their immediate supervisor/team leader is
doing a good job.
X 53% 59%
61 Employees do not have a high level of respect for
their organizations’ senior leaders.
X 48% 40%
62 Senior leaders do not demonstrate support for
Work/Life programs.
X 48% 56%
63 Employees are not satisfied with their involvement
in decisions that affect their work.
X 50% 47%
64 Employees are not satisfied with the information
they receive from management on what’s going on
in their organization.
X 44% 67%
A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

147
Assumed Causes from the EVS Survey Gap Analysis EVS Score
EVS
Question Item Knowledge Motivation Organization NPS PP
65 Employees are not satisfied with the recognition
they receive for doing a good job.
X 46% 43%
66 Employees are not satisfied with the policies and
practices of their senior leaders.
X 38% 36%
67 Employees are not satisfied with their opportunity to
get a better job in their organization.
X 32% 43%
68 Employees are not satisfied with the training they
receive for their present job.
X 44% 60%
69 Considering everything, employees are not satisfied
with their job.
X 66% 67%
70 Considering everything, employees are not satisfied
with their pay.
X 58% 47%
71 Considering everything, employees are not satisfied
with their organization.
X 57% 53%

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

148
APPENDIX D
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Observational protocol will be used at the two-day workshop at Picturesque Park. The protocol
includes descriptive and reflective notes reflecting the researcher’s thoughts and perspectives
(Creswell, 2009) and will consist of:

Descriptive information about the geographical, temporal (time), and physical space
of the workshop.

Participant information: how many employees participated?

Demographic participant information: racial, ethnic, gender, class, roles of
participants.

Behavior of the participants: group interactions, individual actions, passive
participants and active participants.

o Connection between EVS scores and perceived causes
o Avoiding particular issues
o Causes that serve as a distraction and are unrelated to the EVS
o Alignment of solutions to causes
o Appropriateness of solutions

A GAP ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

149
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Introduction: “Thank you for meeting with me. I am a doctoral student at USC and I’m here to
help the park understand more about its EVS findings. It appears that the NPS as a whole
continues to score in the bottom quarter of approximately 250 federal organizations. I’m
interested from your experience in this park, why you think that might be. I hope to be able to
use what I learn from today in helping the park refine its action plan. Anything you tell me will
remain anonymous. I will not attribute anything you say to you either by name or job category.
You may chose to skip any question and you may end this interview at any time. The total time
should take no longer than 30 minutes. What questions do you have for me before we begin? Do
you mind if I record our interview? I will destroy the recording once I’ve finished my report.

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

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Addressing first year Master of Social Work students' preparedness for field education: A gap analysis approach

PDF

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

PDF

Evaluating collective impact in a local government: A gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Choy, Denalee Li-yi (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/05/2015

Defense Date 02/22/2014

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

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

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email denalee@gmail.com,denaleec@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-529261

Unique identifier UC11297602

Identifier etd-ChoyDenale-3112_rev.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-529261 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ChoyDenale-3112_rev.pdf

Dmrecord 529261

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Choy, Denalee Li-yi

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