The following report was one of several provided to a company that was merging with another. The objective was to determine how and who to downsize into the newly formed merged company. This was also the opportunity to "tune" the organizational structure, management style as well as selecting the best of the employees of the two companies. The names of the companies have been changed and some other edits have been made to protect my former clients (all tabs, appendicies and attachments have been removed) but otherwise this report was as it was delivered. It is provided here, not as a lesson in OCM but rather as an example of one possible unique analytical approach.

The objective of this report is to identify attitudes and perspectives of the staff of the Information Systems (IS) operations of <Merger Target Business> (MTB) with respect to potential changes in the organization. The staff positions represented employees and managers in several work areas but they were identified as all being involved directly with the IS operations and, for the purposes of this report, will be collectively referred to as “IS Staff”. Later in the report, each of the work areas will be individually analyzed.

Once examined, the attitudes and perspectives of the staff can then be used to make management decisions that may improve the outcome of organizational changes including mergers or combined operations with other organizations. In most cases, the objective of such studies is to reduce “resistance to change” and to maintain as high a level of productivity as possible during the transition to the new organizational environment. To a lesser degree, this information can be applied to retain or reduce the staff based on how the management decides to address the staff's distresses and concerns about the changes being made around them.

In formal terms, this is called Organizational Change Management (OCM), which is the management of changes to the organizational structure and content as a result of or in anticipation of changes to the processes, procedures, policy, culture or productivity of the organization. OCM pertains to the people and culture of the organization as opposed to the business activities and processes or the technological infrastructure. However, in most cases, OCM is a necessary management function to be concerned with in the event of changes to (1) the business activities or processes of the organization or to (2) the technological infrastructure or to (3) the culture or people. In other words, to any major change in the organization. The material for this report came primarily from the disk-based survey results that were provided by the IS Staff.

In this particular application of OCM, a number of analytical techniques have been combined to provide a more informed view of the organization and the people in it. The analysis is based on techniques derived from five Human Resource Management researchers and their methods. Each of these five techniques correspond to a section of the survey and will be discussed and explained.

Within these four environment areas, Management will also examine the planning and decision making process and human resource management. Organization will include employee analysis as seen through the results of the Organizational Diagnosis Profile disk-based survey. This will include a global analysis of the formal and informal norms of the organization and how they may interact to support or resist changes. Finally, recommendations will be offered on how the organization can be improved based on established and proven research and practical application of improvement techniques.

The nature of this study, as contracted, was not to examine individuals within the staff but rather to examine the organizational structure, management techniques and issues related to human resource management. To that end, it may or may not lend itself to the application of selection for staff reduction, however, it will be especially effective for staff retention.

Making recommendations that may be used in decisions related to altering an organizational structure, its policies and practices or to hire or fire employees is a serious responsibility. In providing the analysis that leads to our recommendations, we must be sure that we have examined all the alternatives and taken into consideration all of the relevant issues. This examination is limited by the time, cost and content of the information collected and analyzed. The basis of our evaluation has been established by industry and general business research and studies of “best practices”. When monitored over long periods of time, these have developed into industry benchmarks of performance and expectations. It is to these formal and experiential references that the IS employees and management of MTB were compared within the limits of the available data.

In order to justify our conclusions, it is important to explain these formal and informal research study findings and to relate the applicable aspects of MTB operations to the experience of others. To do that, it is necessary to include in this report, brief explanations of scientific, analytical and sociological studies and economic analyzes that support our conclusions. See Appendix A.

To keep the main portion of the report focused on results and conclusions, some of the supporting material and researched information for these topics has been placed into corresponding appendices. See Appendices C and D.

A survey was provided to the IS Staff of <Merger Target Company> that was answered by 86% of the staff members. From this sample size, the responses were analyzed to gain insights into a number of aspects of organizational behavior and management. The results of the survey were used to develop and quantify an Organizational Diagnostic Profile of motivations, norms, attitudes and perspectives.

The survey questions and sequence represents hundreds of hours of research into human resource management and organizational change management that spans more than four decades of work. Rather than use a single theory or method, this survey actually takes a unique mix of the variety of perspectives of the various researchers and combines them in a unique manner to give a much more complete and reliable analysis of the organization. See Appendix A.

Finally, the survey results were compared to “best practices”, as established by major leaders in the field of organizational management to determine the optimum course of action to achieve a more efficient organization, a more effective management, an improved degree of internal communications and the optimum motivational approach. Although the focus of this effort is to prepare for or respond to organizational change, it is also effective for static condition management and performance optimization.

In general, the attitudes of the IS Staff employees is positive. In an examination of seven aspects of the organization that were scored on a scale of 1 to 7 with 1 being maximum negative and 4 being neutral, only one aspect surveyed was listed as a neutral score - meaning as many thought it was positive as thought it was negative. All the rest showed averages and medians above the neutral point (positive). This was further corroborated by standard deviations of less than one on more than half of the responses. This means that all the surveyed employees generally agree with each other and they collectively agree that MTB is a good place to work and would like to continue to work there.

The scores show an increased concern for potential future changes and belief that there may be limited help offered by the organization. Surprisingly, there is a perception that there is a difference between “Management” and “the organization”. This usually means that for most employees, their most immediate supervisors are regarded well by the employees but feel that the senior executive level management is not responsive to their needs. They might feel like bad directives from their immediate supervisors are not within their control to change.

Interestingly enough, there was also a sense that if the employee did anything to warrant special recognition from Senior Management, that they would get it. This might partially reflect that in a relatively small organization, the Senior Management knows all and sees all. It is probably more likely the case that their immediate supervisors are conscientiously making upper management aware of the performance of their subordinates.

There is a deep seated sense of family and friendship within the organization and there is a lot of power in the “informal organization”. This is both good and bad. There is a strong sense of loyalty to fellow workers and, I would expect, that there are a lot of close friends among the employees of the same work areas. This can lead to peer pressure of a poor performer to perform better but it can also lead to strong organized resistance to a perceived “outside” threat. “Outside” in this case, refers to outside the informal organizational elements of the peer groups. See Appendix A for further details of the informal organization. Since the employees value job security very highly, any threat to their jobs could meet with significant resistance if they decide it is not in their best interests. Appendix B is specifically directed at addressing this potential problem.

In addition to the close interpersonal relationships among the employees, there is also a positive sense of community and client relationships. This indicates that the employees have a sense of duty to their customers and identify with them. This can be a powerful motivation to work long hours or volunteer for extra work when the primary beneficiary is the customer and not the company. I suspect that your employees have always been willing to work long hours, overtime or at extra tasks in times of natural disaster or unexpected failed equipment.

A possible complicating factor is that there is a strong sense among the employees that the management is not being open and honest with them. Candor actually got a negative score in a test range that averaged more than +39 and had other factors such as Client Relations at a score of 67 and Work Relations at a score of 56. This was corroborated by a low score in the expectations of Attention and Support as an organizational response to a situational need. Some of the recommendations in Appendix B will also address this subject.

The survey questions also have been designed to examine how the staff views the survey itself. Upon careful examination and cross checking with the organization chart, it appears that candor - the frankness of responses - diminished with each rise in the organizational ladder. The more senior the respondent, the less likely he or she was to provide a straightforward and forthright response to survey questions. This is almost always a result of fear - fear of repercussions, fear of the impact of their responses and/or fear of the impending future (rocking the boat). The survey is designed to get at the answers even when the respondent is not completely cooperative.

Finally, there an expressed lack of faith and trust in the strategic analysis, planning and decision making processes. Surprisingly, this was common and consistent at all levels of the staff. Employees think the managers can do better and the mid-level managers think that upper management could do better. Upper management is viewed as being not well informed.

The impending deregulation of the electric utility industry is obviously the motivation for a careful and extensive cost-cutting effort within MTB and it, no doubt, is part of the motivation for consideration of any mergers or joint ventures with other utility organizations. Since labor costs are often seen as one of the most expensive items on the budget, it is natural to look to cutting the size of the payroll as one of the first areas to review to lower overall expenses. This is a very common practice, especially in a merger situation of two organizations that each have a full IS staff, since it is often not necessary to retain everyone to meet the needs of the new, combined organization.

There is, however, an additional important consideration. Many business researchers now view the labor force of an organization as a critical, perhaps, the most critical strategic resource that can affect competitive advantage. When viewed as a critical strategic resource that should be evaluated on the same scale and level as other strategic elements, labor takes on an entirely different perspective. This can be even more important in a merger situation, which is, by definition, a critical strategic decision.

This is called the “resource-based view” and is the object of a serious field of theory, research and practice called Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM). More and more companies are looking beyond the results of managerial efforts to determine the knowledge, skills, abilities, even traits and motivations critical to achieving strategic objectives.

Corporations have long sought to identify their "core competencies" those things that organizations do that contribute to their sustained competitive advantage. Human resources have always been included in competitive analyses, but focus until recently was more on the results of people's efforts, not the behaviors contributing to them. Now that has changed.

Rather than take the view that the deregulated environment or the new merged organization can best be addressed by offering the lowest electric rates by cutting costs and that cutting costs equates to downsizing the staff, SHRM dictates that the prudent objective is to achieve sustained competitive advantage through the strategic use of all available resources, including human resources. This approach may result in downsizing the staff, if it is done to achieve sustained competitive advantage, however, an organization would be ill advised to downsize potentially valuable staff just to cut costs or to increase product sales.

It has been firmly established that the IS staff of an organization has the second greatest influence on the success or failure of the organization than any other organizational element, second only to senior level managers. This is because of the degree that changes in the IS environment has on nearly every aspect of the organization. Each IS Staff member has the potential of influencing far beyond his or her immediate areas of responsibility. Until the entire critical strategic role of the new organization is fully explored and defined, it may be premature to cut the IS staff.

The study of the IS Staff was conducted using five different analytical tests. Four of these were applied to the Employee surveys and one was unique to the managers. Appendix A describes these five tests and how they are used to analyze the survey responses. It is important to carefully examine these descriptions to allow you to judge the validity and appropriateness of the conclusions and recommendations at the end of this report.

Without a much greater level of analysis and organizational examination, no one can really know all aspect of your organization. The best we can do is try to apply the best science we have and look for clues to help make informed decisions. The analytical tests of the survey results create “indicators” of various aspects of the perceptions, attitudes and prejudices of the IS staff. For any number of reasons, these indicators can be wrong or interpreted wrong. This is especially true as the groups or sub-groups being analyzed get smaller and smaller. A statistically significant sample size includes a consideration that one person's views might skew the results if the total group is small.

The survey has been prepared and analyzed with the best information available in the field but it still needs a “sanity check” by the senior and mid-level managers to confirm that the interpretations of the numerical quantifications of emotional and mental perceptions are valid. You are encouraged to examine every conclusion and every analysis to see if it “rings true”. If it doesn't sound right then don't use it in your decision making process. If it does not seem to have the same weight in your opinion as the survey results would seem to indicate, then weigh it's influence on your decisions accordingly.

To begin the analysis, it is important to examine the present environment, not as a simple description but in light of the “resource-based view” and the Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) perspective.

The average ODP of all employees was 4.68 with a median of 4.8. This is a positive response indicating a generally good feeling about the organization and the people in it. Given that the total average score is generally high and the average for each of the seven test areas was higher than 4.06, we must look at the relative variations within the range of high values to see indicators of any issues of importance. When we do that, three items pop out as below the average. They are Rewards, Helpful Mechanisms and Attitude toward change.

Of these, Helpful Mechanisms (4.49) and Attitude Toward Change (4.66) are so close to the average of 4.68 as to not be significantly negative. They do indicate that there is a slight concern that there is a lack of support to do the work needed but there is some fear about what might be involved if anything is changed. Such slight levels of concern can easily be addressed by improved involvement and participation in the planning and implementing of future changes or improvements to the processes. See Appendix B.

Rewards was the lowest ODP score with 4.06. Still a high value as most organizations go but low enough to point to concerns within MTB. Other survey questions isolated the concern to three areas: (1) a lack of senior management response, (2) nature of the motivation applied and something called (3) the contingent consequence. These same three issues reoccur as causes of other issues of concern by the employees and the managers. Let's look at each of the three items:

As noted in the Executive Summary, the most immediate supervisor of most employees is viewed very favorably but the senior executive level managers are seen as being “out-of-touch” or uninterested. This is not an unusual response among very junior employees but it was too pervasive to be ignored. It may reflect a large, geographically dispersed organization or it may reflect a problem with management isolation from the worker level. One response may be “MBWA” - Management By Walking Around. The senior managers might consider seeing and being seen more and to open the lines of communication down and up the chain of command.

In a ranking of the priorities of motivations for the employees, money was 3td out of 10 followed closely by Job Security. Job or company status was 8th. Although, no one provided any specific examples in the survey, the indicators are that the organization response to a good performance is often not what the employees value. The MTB IS staff value a Sense of Accomplishment much more than Job Status but when combined with a lack of “Attention” (the second lowest contingent response - see below) and other matters of recognition of accomplishments, the value of this motivation is greatly diminished. The survey indicates that if you rewarded a good performance by an $5.00 certificate and the use of a special parking space for a month, it would probably be seen as a more effective motivation than if you had given them a job title change or a pat on the back by the CEO.

A Contingent Consequence is just a response to an event or happening. In the HRM world, there are expected responses by the “organization” to specific actions on the part of the employee. If the employee performs well, he or she has certain expectations of the organizational response. The same is true for bad performance also. In fact, there are a whole range of Contingent Organizational Response expectations in the minds of the employees. In the case of the MTB IS staff, responses that involve attention, sympathy, a compliment, help with problems, pay increase or support are seen as not very likely by most of the staff, with “support” having the least expected response. This corroborates the problem of motivation and of “out-of-touch” senior managers.

In general, the IS Staff is satisfied with their jobs and with the organization. Any problems that exist are focused on only a small issue and not generalized to the entire organization. You will see in the following sections, ways to address these relative deficiencies, so that the total ODP scores will be substantially higher in all areas.

The “resource-based view” of Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) has only recently recognized that the human resources associated with information services and information technology may be a special case within the general organizational structure. Information Technology Systems (ITS) have rapidly evolved into a fundamental infrastructure element of nearly every aspect of an organization. From office automation to operational monitoring and control, ITS now is critical to successful process control and management and therefore is one of the most important elements to sustaining competitive advantage in business and to being cost-effective in operations.

Since it is often the case that the applied ITS requires special skills and training that is not usually common in the experience base of the average user, the people in the ITS support positions often have and exaggerated affect on their organizations relative to other process specific skills. A measure of the “value” of such a position can be seen in the industry costs to replace an experienced ITS person relative to a position in another department. In one study, 13 companies were surveyed and analyzed that had replaced an experienced mid-level software programmer and an experienced mid-level financial accountant. Cost of replacement included the training time and productivity loss during the learning curve of organizational-specific operations and tools, in addition to the usual advertisements, interviews and administration. The average cost to place the programmer was $21,575; the average cost to replace the accountant was $17,340 or a 24% decrease.

In general, the IS Staff management staff is satisfied with their jobs and with the organization. Any problems that exist are focused on only a small issue and not generalized to the entire organization. An ODP survey was given to the Managers that was different in several aspects from the one given to the employees. Unfortunately, not every manager answered every questions but there were sufficient answers and redundancy to do a proper analysis.

In Appendix D, are the plotted charts of ODP results of each manager and some summary charts showing totals and averages. When reviewing these charts, remember that the arbitrary scale of the ODP was 1 to 7 (a range of 6 values) with 4 as the Neutral response, 7 as the most positive response and 1 as the most negative response.

The average ODP of all managers was 5.07. This is a very positive response indicating a generally good feeling about the organization and the people in it. Given that the total average score is generally high and the average for each seven of the test areas was higher than 4.0, we must look at the relative variations within the range of high values to see indicators of any issues of importance. When we do that, we see only two items as slightly below the average. They are Rewards, and Help Mechanisms.

To gain insight into the issues of these three lower scored items, the total questionnaire had to be reviewed in light of each persons position in the organization and in their duties. In the case of Structure, the managers' responses agree with the employees' responses - that is that there is a perception that there might be a better way to do things but the low Attitude Toward Change indicates a fear of that change. This is normal and typical of any organization that is doing what MTB is doing.

Another significant aspect of the manager's survey results was a sharp difference in the scores. Two manages scored more than a full point above the average and two scored nearly a full point below the average. In looking at the organizational chart of these positions, it seems that the higher the management position, the more pessimistic the view and the lower the ODP score. A similar effect, although not so dramatic or consistent, was evident among the employee survey scores. This may reflect the following situation:

The more experienced, knowledgeable and aware individuals in the department sense more problems and risk than the less experienced, knowledgeable or aware employees or managers. This is not unusual but it may affect the leadership and management of the group by having a more negative or cautious attitude.

Most modern corporate perspectives now subscribe to the view that managers are as much responsible for their organization's success as they are for its failure. The managers in the IS Staff need to take full credit for the positive scores by both employees and mangers. This is a very positive attitude and can be used as a powerful force to support and sustain future changes.

2. Improve the communications within and between the IS Staff and other departments. Specifically directed at defining and limiting the boundaries of what the IS Staff will and will not do for the other departments. The IS Staff must be seen as a service but not as a captured slave;

3. Improve the incentive system in such a way that better work is given a proportionately higher reward than an average or poor performer. This must also include the managers and their total performance of their functional areas of responsibility.

The lowest employee ODP score was in Helpful Mechanisms. This pertains to how well MTB uses technology to support the operations. The low score indicates that the relative concern for this area is high among MTB employees.

In this case, other questions pin point the problem to be related to communications - both within the IS Staff and between departments. There seems to be a perception of a lack of information flow up and down the change of command as well as between the different functional areas of MTB. The concern was most often expressed as not knowing why things are being done the way they are or in a feeling that the IS Staff was not as “involved” or kept aware of strategic issues as other departments. This issue is exacerbated by the compartmentalization of tasks to applications.

This may stem from a feeling that “we don't need to explain ourselves” or a sense that “If I don't tell them everything, they will continue to need me”. My analysis indicates the problem is more of the former than the latter.

Of some significance is that, although it did not get a significantly lower score, “Rewards” was specifically mentioned in three of the four manager's surveys and in seven of the 15 employees surveys. The consistent comment was that it was an inconsistent (sometimes called unfair) system. The example given most often was that a poor performer was given nearly the same “rewards” as the top performer. The difference being sometimes as little as ½ of 1%. The significance of it not being given a low score on the ODP survey indicates that monetary reward is not among the most important incentives for the employees. The fact that it was mentioned so often is indicative that the staff thinks it is a matter of pride, sense of fairness and competitiveness that is not evenly applied to all.

The first part of the survey was derived from work first done by Dr. M. R. Weisbord, described in a book titled, “Group and Organizational Studies”. The process of identifying and asking the right questions to generate one aspect of an Organizational Profile was called an Organizational Diagnosis by Dr. Weisbord. The final output of this process is referred to as the “Organizational Diagnosis Profile” or ODP. The ODP measured responses on multiple questions to seven different aspects of the organization. These were:

In Appendix C and D, are the plotted charts and diagrams of ODP results from each employee and some summary charts showing totals and averages. The arbitrary scale of the ODP was 1 to 7 (a range of 6 values) with 4 as the Neutral response, 7 as the most positive response and 1 as the most negative response.

The next section of the survey examined the organizational norms that are operating in your organization. These were the subject of extensive research by Dr. Dorwin Cartwright and Ronald Lippitt, behavioral psychologist, in the late 1950's. In the following three decades, the concept that an organization can have it's own behavior and psychology developed out of dozens of research studies. Most notable of these was “Group Dynamics” by Dr. Cartwright. This lead directly to a further study, in the late 70's of human behavior at work and the interaction of the individual and the organization. In the 80's and 90's, the emphasis has been on the management response to these discoveries. The questions used in the MTB survey were derived from a must larger study developed by Harvard University and published in the Sloan Management Review in 1987, titled, “Organizational Behavior and Performance”.

The formal organization, the one everyone sees on the “org chart” has its published performance standards. However, the “informal organization” has a different set of performance expectations called “norms” and “values”. The informal organization is the result of normal group interaction. Members of the informal group tend to subordinate some of their individual needs to those of the group as a whole. In return, the individual perceives that the group supports and protects them. Informal groups may further the interests of the organization or they may oppose the organizational objectives.

1. They maintain and strengthen the norms and values their members hold in common. Although the informal group's ability to uphold shared values can make the workplace more stable, it can also become a barrier to change. If any informal group is led to fear job losses as a result of more efficient productivity or an impending merger, that group could be in a position to create barriers that thwart management plans - for example, by cooperating less than fully with new directives.

2. They give these members feelings of social satisfaction, status and security. In a large corporation, for example, where many people feel that their employers hardly know them, informal groups enable these people to share jokes and complaints, eat together and perhaps socialize after work. Informal groups thus satisfy the human need for friendship and support. They give their members a feeling of security based on the sharing of a common situation.

3. Informal groups help their members to communicate. Members of informal groups learn about matters that affect them by developing their own informal channels of communications that supplement the more formal channels. In fact, managers often use informal networks to convey information “unofficially”. Likewise, the employees often use the “grapevine” to circulate both true and false information about organizational activity. In particular, when employees are not informed about matters that directly affects them, they may generate information that weakens morale and leads people to make poor decisions.

4. Informal groups help solve problems. They might aid a sick or tired employee or devise activities to deal with boredom. Quite often, such group problem solving helps the organization - for example, when co-workers tell nonproductive employees to “shape up”. But these groups can also reduce an organization's effectiveness. A common example is the pressure placed on new employees to reduce their efforts in order that the group's normal standards not be called into question. Informal groups may actually act as reference groups, encouraging conformity among their members. This practice may be good up to a point, because shared norms and values can improve relationships and even encourage members' creative energies. Too much conformity, however, can deter members from acting creatively or assertively (or productively).

Portions of the survey were directed at trying to identify the norms at work within MTB and to what degree they are embedded in the informal control structure of the organization. Ten areas were examined to explore the norms active in the areas. They were:

Because of its importance, two of the sections of the survey were directed at motivation. Motivation of individuals in the context of an organization is the subject of some of the most intensive studies in psychology and contemporary management. There are literally dozens of theories and perspectives that examine the subject from every possible angle. There are three mayor classifications of motivation theories. Distinctions are made on the basis of content theories, which focus on the “what” of motivation, and process theories, which focus on the “how” of motivation and reinforcement theories, which emphasize the ways in which behavior is learned.

Content theories, associated with such names as Maslow and Herzberg, stresses understanding the factors within individuals that cause them to act in a certain way. It attempts to answer such questions as: What needs do people try to satisfy? What impels them to action? Dr. Maslow attempted to define fundamental needs of all humans as a scale of natural needs. Dr. Fredrick Herzberg looked at both positive and negative factors to derive a table of factors that lead to extreme job satisfaction and factors that lead to extreme job dissatisfaction. It is rare in the real world of business that factors that contribute to extreme satisfaction in one individual will lead to extreme job dissatisfaction in another. For this reason, some important implications can be made from the list in the table below.

Achievement	Company Policy and Administration
Recognition	Supervision
Work Itself	Relationship with Supervisor
Responsibility	Work Conditions
Advancement	Salary
Growth	Relationship with Peers
	Relationship with Subordinates
	Status
	Security

Factors in column A have the potential for a significant impact when present, resulting in extreme satisfaction, however, they often do not create a corresponding extreme dissatisfaction when not present. By contrast, factors in column B have the potential for a significant impact when not present, resulting in extreme dissatisfaction, however, they often do not create a corresponding extreme satisfaction when present.

The process approach emphasizes how and by what goals individuals are motivated. In this view, needs are just one elements of the process by which individuals decide how to behave. An additional factor in motivation is the valence or strength of an individual's preference for the expected outcome. For example, if an individual both expects that exceeding production quotes will lead to promotion and strongly desires to be promoted, then he or she will be strongly motivated to exceed production quotas.

Reinforcements theories, associated with B. F. Skinner and others, are also often called behavior modification. These theories deal with how the consequences of a past action influence future actions in a cyclical learning process. In this view, people behave the way they do because they have learned through experience that certain behaviors are associated with pleasant outcomes and others with unpleasant consequences. They will value more the pleasant outcomes that motivate behaviors that they enjoy the most but the “positive reinforcements” will always be preferable than the negative reinforcements.

Rather than select one of these three main theory types and ignore the others, the MTB survey actually contained questions that lend themselves to being analyzed in the context of any one of these three major classifications of motivation.

Specifically, the survey examined the perceptions of rewards and the reinforcement values of rewards to the individual. The survey also examined the difference between the perception of performance and the organizational response.

This approach was accomplished by first examining eleven different “contingent consequences”. This means that we looked at what kind of reward response is expected by the organization if given a specific circumstance on the part of the employee. The areas examined were:

To examine the value that the employee places on these rewards or consequences, we also placed ipsative test questions in the survey that examine the relative importance of ten reward categories. They are:

By linking the survey results from these questions, the motivation of the IS staff has been examined in light of all three of the major motivation theories allowing some very powerful conclusions to be drawn on to obtain optimum performance while improving productivity and reducing resistance.

I cannot make final conclusions but it would appear that if the steps described in Appendix B are followed and the IS staff is retained, they would be very motivated workers. It also appears that the potential to develop significant resistance to change can evidence itself among the staff, up to and including individuals that can impact productivity. The close-net informal organization can collectively feel threatened to the point that some employees will quit or rebel against change if others of their group are fired as a result of downsizing. Productivity can be affected and the now positive attitudes of the employees can be compromised if the impending changes are not handled properly. Some of the recommendations in Appendix B will also address this subject.

A	B
Factors that lead to Extreme Satisfaction	Factors that lead to Extreme Dissatisfaction