Essay: Organisational Attitude Behavior

Organisational Attitude Behavior

ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

• Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to identify how people’s attitude was towards different functions, which occurred before and after Organisational Change. The elements included the overall attitude of 30 employees, through Communication, Co-operation, Common Purpose and Organisational Support. The purpose of all these elements chosen was to analyze and discuss factors on how attitudes of individuals had differed in complies and contrasts of the organisational change.

Employee attitudes can be dedicated by the feeling of all the respondents as to how communication was communicated to the employees, common purpose which was set for them by their management, and how much organisational support that was given to the employee’s before and after the organisational change. Each of these elements had an effect on each employee feelings within their organisation and also towards there jobs.

Overall, a restructuring of an organisation were changes are implemented has a strong connection towards individuals behaviors when under going changes. Organisational Change can be strongly influenced by the direction from senior management and managerial actions.

• Introduction

The purpose of this report was to investigate ‘How do employee attitudes compare before and after organizational change?’ A random sample of 30 employees spanning the corporate hierarchy was surveyed as a primary source of information. These results were contrasted to the findings of secondary research in the form of a literature review

We framed our research in the context of merger and post merger environment as this was what our subject company had undergone. The subject organization had recently undergone a major merger process during which a number of small independent print companies were conglomerated into a whole.

The rationale behind merging can be seen as a reaction to increased competition in the print industry. As businesses become more competitive, the profitability of independent printers is compromised. In order to maximise profitability, it is logical for the smaller companies to unite their capabilities under one brand. Our hypothesis was that employees would have a highly negative attitude to mergers and perceive the process as a major threat to job security. We also expected that the procedure of restructuring would be highly stressful. We tested this perception through the survey in order to assess whether the change in attitudes of employees was affected by these mitigating factors.

Organisational Change is defined as “Companies that are undergoing or that have undergone a transformation. This keyword should always be used in conjunction with "success story" or "experiment" or "failed experiment." (MITsloan, 2007)

Our findings show that contrary to the common perception, there has been no significant change over all, in the attitude of those surveyed towards the company and their jobs.

Literature Review

Recent academic studies on the affects of employee attitudes towards organisational change through company mergers and acquisitions have highlighted the need for companies to form a better approach towards handling organisational change. Through a survey of recent works on the subject we have been able to conclude that there are five key areas that companies need to address when handling major changes within organisations.

The five key areas are:

• Companies require a logical reason for merging

• Companies need lines of communication so they have a clear understanding of the merger

• Vision is essential to the overall success of the merger

• Employees need to be informed as early as possible about any threats to their job security

• Mergers are one of the most stressful events for a company as a whole and due to this special attention needs to be paid by managers to reducing/controlling the effects of stress on employees.

• Reasons for merging

Initially the question must be asked; why do companies merge? “The answer is, there is no choice. The competition is getting stronger every day…a standard of continuous learning and improvement is being pursued and becoming the norm” (Galpin, 1996, p.117). As competitive advantage is becoming the key focus of companies the desire to merge with competitors is increasing. This has affected all industries “in their quest for maintaining market competiveness, companies in almost every industry have resorted to radical change programmes” (Geisler,1997, p.39). The company we surveyed merged due to increasing competiveness in the industry which had resulted in the need for a number of smaller companies to merge in order to compete as a whole. This is a relatively common rational for merging, however our chosen company is significant due to the number of companies who were amalgamated into a single whole.

• Communication

The majority of studies identify communication as the main area for successful mergers. In order to successfully communicate “communications should be realistic and honest, glossing over possible negatives will create a belief that the messages are not honest” (Galpin, 1996, p.39). In a recent survey of a UK manufacturing company one respondent critiqued the company due to “Management wouldn’t volunteer any information so we had to constantly harp on and on, asking them how this would affect us and what was going to happen to us.” (Psychological Attitudes after Organisational Restructuring: Understanding survivor Syndrome in a UK manufacturing company,1995). Further to this it is apparent that companies often fail to keep employees up to date on the merger process “participants specifically reported that they were not provided with many details about organisational change, which suggests that they may not have had a thorough understanding of the rationale of the change” (Psychological Attitudes after Organisational Restructuring,1995) This is significant as it shows how poor communication can have a negative impact on employees.

• Vision

Clear and precise vision is a prerequisite to successful mergers. The company needs to ensure that it knows why it is merging and that whoever the merging partners are have similar vision statements. It might seem logical for two companies to vertically integrate a supplier and distributor for example; except if both have incompatible business visions and methods the merger is doomed. In addition to this having a clear and easily understandable vision behind the merger can make issues over communication easier “Communications messages should be linked to the strategic purpose of the change initiative” (L, Fossum, 1989). This also helps lower stress levels of employees as they will be able to have a better idea of why and what is going to be the result and rational behind the merger. This also helps reduce any possibility of resistance to the merger “If leaders are able to convey a clear vision of the nature and destiny of the changed organisation, then employees should regard the event as low in threat and high in control” (R, Yukl, Deborah J, 1994). As with all aspects of business a clear understanding of why an event is occurring is needed; due to the significant impact a merger has on a business then having an underlying vision is crucial to merger success.

• Job Security

Studies show that employee’s main concern when going through a major merger is their job security “in addition to experiencing uncertainty, employees may perceive organisational change as a major source of threat to their job security, personal career paths, and financial wellbeing” (Deborah J. Nerina & L. Jimmieson, 1994). One employee from a UK manufacturing company quoted “I wanted to know whether or not I had to start looking for a new job… I just wanted to take a proactive attitude and look after my security… but you would ask and ask and managers would just brush you off(15)” (Psychological Attitudes after Organisational Restructuring,1995). In saying this it is obvious that managers aren’t interested in letting employee’s know about their job security during the process of the merger “I was told nothing. My work unit was told nothing. If we asked the boss what was happening we were told it didn’t concern us as management were the only ones qualified to make decisions… we had no idea what was going on and we were only trying to find out, not to undermine our managers, but to make ourselves feel a bit more secure” (Psychological Attitudes after Organisational Restructuring,1995). This shows that employees need to know if there is any possible risk to their employment as well as any process such as reapplication that they might have to follow. Threats to job security even if only perceived need to be addressed as early as possible in order to stem any drop in motivation. Further to this any threats to job security also increase resistance to organisational change as unsurprisingly employees will fight as much as possible to keep their employment.

• Stress

Research shows that stress is a major factor in organisational mergers. In order to effectively combat stress related issues managers need to be able to support employees “In the context of organizational change, a supportive relationship with a supervisor is likely to be particularly important because this person is in a key position to provide both relevant instrumental assistance and emotional support (Deborah J. Nerina & L. Jimmieson 1987). To help with stress related issues employees need to be kept informed about the merger “Organisation also need to ensure that managers involved in direct supervision of employees are an adequate source of support during the period of change and to ensure that employees are kept accurately informed about the change” (Deborah J. Nerina & L. Jimmieson 1987). If employees are kept well informed about the changes happening in their organisation they are less likely to be affected by stress and any hindrance this might place upon their performance. Studies show that stress resulting from major company mergers is equal to that of some of the most pivotal life experiences “Mergers and Acquisitions have been conceptualized as stressful life events; in terms of social readjusting rating scale (Holmes and Rahe, 1967) they have equated with the stress of gaining a new family member or becoming bankrupt” (M, Bryant 2006.). Increased worker stress is a result of almost all facets of mergers, from threats to job security through to increased workloads throughout the actual merger process. Further to this stress affects all levels of the company structure and as a result can lead to a ‘knock on effect’ where by stress at high levels of management can be carried down through the entire company. In conjunction to this stress created from the merger process persists for longer than just the actual merger time frame. It has been noted that “Significantly high stress levels were also reported in a post-merger study of building a society managers (Cartwright & Cooper, 1993). Again the most effective tactic for avoiding undue stress is to be aware of its effects on employees and that the effects of the merger might be far further reaching than anticipated by management.

In conclusion we have focused our research along these lines in order to track how effective our company was in handling the merger process. By outlining the main issues faced by management and employees we can then analyse how these aspects were addressed by the company. Our empirical research conducted through surveys was phrased in order to try and establish if these key areas had been addressed as issues within the merger process. The main body of work on the area of employee attitudes towards mergers has been focused on avoiding major issues within the merger process as well as tracking the effects on production outside of the merger. In our study we have focused on these issues in order to build on this body of work already published.

• Method:

• Aims and Objectives

Our aims into this research project were to obtain primary and secondary research into how employee attitudes have changed before and after the organisational change had taken place. A descriptive and exploratory research was conducted to compare the employee attitudes in a large company in visual communication industry.

Our objective in conducting a quantitative Questionnaire was to analysis organisational change within the selected organisation in the primary stages of there restructure, enabling us to gain a greater understanding on Communication and Co-operation, Common Purpose, and organisational support and how it contributed to employee transition with minimal stress and disruption.

• Participant sample and eligibility:

The questionnaires were distributed to random selected participants of our chosen organisation between the dates of 21 April 2008 to 25 April 2008. The respondents that were targeted are all employees of our selected organisation. These randomly selected employees have all contributed and experienced organisational restructure and change.

The respondents were from both genders, male and female. They were of different age groups ranging between 17 to 60 plus from diverse ethnicity. The respondents were part of an organisational merger that consists of two different company’s production locations, because they closed down due to the restructure and had merged into one organisation. Amongst the thirty survey questionnaires distributed, 30 usable responses were received, for a final response rate of one hundred percent.

Age	Female	Male
17-19	2	1
20-29	2	3
30-39	3	5
40-49	4	2
50-59		7
60+		1
Ethnicity
Pakeha/European	3	4
Moari	3	4
Pacific Island	4	3
Asian	1	2
Other	3	2
Length of service
Less than 1 year	2	6
1-5 years	4	4
6-9 years	3	5
10+ years	3	3
Organisational level
Senior manger	0	1
Middle manager	2	1
First level manager	1	2
Non-management employee	8	14

The table above shows the statistics of our surveyed employees

• Questionnaire Structure:

The questionnaire was created based on primary research conducted and researched by the group. The questionnaire was specifically designed for Organisational Change as part of our Organisational Behavior Study. A questionnaire and a demographic information sheet were distributed among the employees to gather the primary data, which had been approved and signed off by our lecturer.

The questionnaire consisted of fourteen questions. The first part of the questionnaire included questions related to communication and co-operation during the organizational restructuring process. These questions were aimed at gauging the co-operation between employees before and after the restructuring as well as gathering information whether the employees were properly informed about the restructuring process. The second part of the questionnaire mainly dealt with measuring the change in working conditions and its implications on employees and the organization. The third part in the questionnaire incorporated issues regarding organizational support during and after the restructuring process.

Nine of the questions in the questionnaire were structured by circling the word that best described their answer (Strongly agree to Strongly Disagree). Three questions were structured on a 1 to 5 rating (5 being very high and 1 as being very low). Two of the questions were yes and no questions and one question was a brief comment.

• Data Collection Procedure:

The questionnaire was developed in many stages, based on an in-depth research on organizational change. The main principal is an existing employee of the chosen organisation whom was responsible for distributing the questionnaire to her colleagues, and also the gathering of the responses. We used the faced to face method of distributing the questionnaires to the respondents.

Secondly, we received the survey questions from the respondents. The calculation were calculated on each quantity of each item in each choice, by using Microsoft Excel we were able to sum up our responses rate as well as sort the differences.

Thirdly graphs were created for each item in the questionnaire, in order to get an intuitionist view of the result for discussion.

• Data Analysis

Weaknesses and Barriers:

The Limited time, and information:

Firstly, regarding the size of the questionnaire, the time constraints of the employees forced the research to limit the number of questions to 15. Due to the limited factor of time we had to conduct our research; we were only able to obtain participants from one organisation. As one of our group members were an employee of this particularly chosen organisation. The location was restricted to one location area. Also due to time factor we only used one method to survey which was the face to face distribution method. The one to one interview would have taken more time as we had to transcribe and additional research was needed for the mix method.

Data collection barriers:

Due to our method used, which was the survey questionnaire, it took longer to retrieve the questionnaire due to willingness and time from the respondents. The participants only had time between lunch and tea brakes to complete the questionnaires resulting in some being reluctant to participate.

Some of the responses maybe untrue:

We had announced on the signing of the authorisation and to despondence that all information obtained would be kept anonymous and confidential, and used only for our research study purposes only. However some participates were concerned about the security of the responded answers, so they did not feel free to answer the questionnaire truly. Another weakness of the method is that the employees may be a little biased when choosing a response to the research questions. They may choose answers to make themselves look good or to compliment their own company. To add, they may stick to middle range/neutral responses, when answering the questionnaire. Further to this on analysis of survey findings we found major discrepancies such as Q12 ‘Were there any changes mde to your role after the restructure?’ where 4 people answered that they did not know if there had been any changes to their role. Further to this in the next question Q13, 16 respondents replied that there had been chances to their role which needed some level of training. This highlights the major issue with conducting a survey in this format where careful attention to answering is not paid by the respondents.

• Findings

52% feel that the organisation has done nothing to help deal with stress arising from changes, 34% feel that the organisation has reacted well to help employees deal with stress, and 14% feel that the organisation’s actions or lack of actions contribute to causing stress among employees.

Of employees who have been with the company before and during the merger most employees perceived cooperation between team members to be positive before the restructure, where only one in seven were unhappy with cooperation and morale in the workplace. Over 50% felt that cooperation was good or better, and the remainder found co-operation to be satisfactory.

Levels of perceived co-operation between employees dropped significantly after the restructuring, where three times as many employees saw co-operation levels to be below satisfactory. This represents over one third of the total employees surveyed and is a significant shift in attitudes of employees to their colleagues.

A clear two thirds of respondents indicated that the new organisation has communicated their vision well to employees. The organisation made an announcement indicating that a merger was going to happen, and how it would be beneficial to the organisation so everyone should have heard that the merger was going to happen, and the remaining third of employees feel that the information released by the company was not informative enough with regards to how the company was going to achieve the vision.

The majority of employees are confident in their job security since the merge.

75% of respondents said that their work was contributing to the success of the organisation, along with 18% who were neutral, and 7% who disagreed or strongly disagreed. This shows that the organisation has placed staff in positions they are capable of doing, but there is room to either extend the responsibilities of these staff who feel they are operating inefficiently, or to make the positions redundant.

75% of respondents said their working conditions had improved since the merge, and this is likely because the company moved into new premises.

75% of respondents indicated that they were working harder since the restructuring, where 25% felt that they had made less of an effort, or their effort had not changed. This is likely due to be motivated by job cuts during the merger as employees are keen to show that they work hard to avoid being perceived as not working hard.

70% of respondents felt that the changes implemented were necessary for the growth of the organisation, and the remaining 30% were indecisive or felt that the changes were not necessary. This links with Question 4, and is a similar result to those who felt that the company had a clear vision.

39% of employees feel that the changes affected their job in a negative way, 20% felt their job was not significantly affected, and 41% felt that the effect of restructuring was positive to their position. In this regard, the employees are divided in opinion.

18% feel that morale has been neglected by management, 39% feel that the company has done well in supporting the morale of employees over the course of the merger, and 43% feel that the organisation has done neither a good nor bad job of improving morale. This is likely connected with question 11 where a similar division of employees occurred – job satisfaction could be linked with the feeling of support from management

52% feel that the organisation has done nothing to help deal with stress arising from changes, 34% feel that the organisation has reacted well to help employees deal with stress, and 14% feel that the organisation has caused stress in excess of what was necessary.

• Discussion

This study examined the effects of restructuring on employee attitudes, and how employees at a company feel when they become part of a larger organisation. An ideal merger takes competencies from both companies and combines them in a way that benefits the organisation as a whole, but the interaction between employees and from management to employees is important to how employees feel. Research was carried out to investigate employee’s attitudes to their working environment, and from this as a group we would draw conclusions as to how well the company managed its employees.

This study on employee attitudes to organisational change used random samplings of employees at a company which had undertaken a significant merger over the last year, moving premises and making some employees redundant in the process. The study found that employee attitudes had become more negative during the restructuring.

• Reason for Merging

The reason for merging was necessary for the smaller companies in the industry to stay competitive by combining competencies, and there was definitely a need for the companies to share knowledge and improve competitive advantage. The benefits of this merger were clear for the industry, with economies of scale, consolidation of brand power and combining information systems more efficiently, and by restructuring these companies together there were definite benefits for the industry and stakeholders. This company itself improved its performance financially, and productivity per employee increased also.

• Communication

The employees knew that the vision of the company was to increase productivity, and that the restructuring was a necessary action towards that goal. The company did clearly state their goal before the merger, and employees knew the intent of the company. However employees felt that the message from the company was too general and positive, and that the information omitted negative possibilities, and lacked specific information. Communication over the course of a restructuring relates to trust and honesty, and glossing over negatives will create a belief that the messages are not honest. (T Galpin, 1996)

In this company, it was found that 60% of employees surveyed thought the company was open and honest about the merger; the remaining 40% were either neutral or thought there was a lack of information. This lack of trust for the organisation by many of the staff was very damaging for relationships at the organization. 30% of employees reported a reduction in morale and co-operation among staff over the course of the restructuring. Employees work to benefit themselves; however their work output is improved generally if they feel that they are contributing to the company in the long term. It is to this end that in our survey we addressed the questions of trust and vision. We found that 30% of employees feel that there is less co-operation between colleagues in the post merger environment. This potentially could have a strong unbalancing force in the company as team outputs are negatively affected.

Negative effects on morale could have been reduced significantly by information being volunteered by managers as well as a more open environment for employees to question the merger process. This has been highlighted as central to the merger process by researchers as highlighted in our literature findings. Employers would have benefitted from increased employee morale by informing their workers more completely, and earlier. In conjunction to this, increased communication would have reduced stress and feelings of threats to job security. Poor communication definitely had a negative effect on employees, and has lead to resentment and reduced team cooperation.

While restructuring is necessary for the reasons described above, the responsibility lies with the employer to inform the staff throughout the procedure.

• Vision

Our survey results reviled that the company was effective at communicating their vision to the employees. The results show that 72% of employees felt that the company was able to communicate this vision. Research in the area of successful mergers shows that clear vision is essential to mergers avoiding failure. This can be divided into two separate areas were firstly the different companies who are to be merged need to having matching company vision statements. Further to this top level management all need to understand exactly how the new company is going to approach and create a new entity out of the different companies. Secondly this vision needs to effectively be communicated to employees. How this is achieved is difficult and depends on the companies themselves and their particular structure. Using our surveyed company we see an interesting mix of results in that the majority of surveyed employees felt that the company had clear vision and this was communicated effectively however employees still felt like greater communication was needed. This can be explained through breaking the problem into parts, the merger was obviously logical in the minds of the employees as the amalgamation of several smaller companies to compete on a larger scale is simple enough. However as research shows this simply is not enough, in communicating the vision employers need to present the full picture of what the new company is and how it will be structured. Simply stating the vision or two line reason for the merger still leaves major questions unanswered. In the example of our organization this was what happened and is reflected in our survey results.

• Employees need to be informed as early as possible about threats to their job security

Studies on the perception of mergers by employees show that one of the initial reactions to mergers is a feeling of job security being threatened. As redundancies are often a major result of mergers the perception and worry over job security is understandable. In our surveyed company we found the despite large redundancies of workers pre merger those who had maintained their positions post merger felt largely secure in their jobs. This is contrary to findings from other researchers who found that many employees will feel insecure in their positions for long periods of time as the company adapts to the merger.

• Mergers are a stressful, managers need to reduce the amount of stress

Mergers have been compeered to major life events as found in our research. Significant stress resulting from the complete merger process affects all levels of the organization. In our survey we found that 66% of respondents reported either neutral or negative to feeling that the company had supported them in reducing stress. Their appeared to be a high reluctance from employees to comment with 52% of those questioned replying “neither agree nor disagree”. This might be attributed to reluctance of workers to critique their employers or low expectations of what constitutes support. Further to this as stress from the merger process affects all levels of the company we often see very little attention being given to helping and dealing with stress. An environment of ‘were all going through the same thing’ might be a result of the merger process and can mean that stress becomes sidelined as an issue to be addressed throughout the course of merging. Stress is one of the most significant detrimental side effects from the merger process and can continue to negatively affect performance well after the merger is complete. Therefore continued support for employees is needed and a survey of employees in another six months would be interesting to see if employees continued to feel support or a lack there of.

Conclusion

The results of the survey found that contrary to the majority of research conducted in the field of employee attitudes towards mergers employees were largely divided over the merger. There was no prevalent attitude of negativity towards the merger despite large redundancies and job insecurity. Further to this we concluded that management was able to clearly and successfully communicate the vision behind the merger; however this vision failed to communicate the real implications of the merger and therefore employees felt largely ‘in the dark’. Lastly we were able to conclude that the subject company needed to address the levels of stress created by the merger and continue to monitor stress levels In the post merger environment.

Our results were inconclusive largely due to flaws within our survey methodology – mainly the breadth and scope of survey questions. Further to this we faced complications in the results from respondents answering in a highly illogical manner. There was reluctance from employees to criticize the company and we faced concerns that the survey results would be made public to the company despite our assurances of confidentiality. Lastly we were unable to match large amounts of the survey to secondary research as we faced issues with getting permission to ask more poignant questions from HR and management in the company.

Our research suffered due to the difficult nature of the topic in that we needed to survey the company before and after the merger to gain a real picture of how employee attitudes had changed. Due to the nature of this project this was not feasible however for further research in the area it would be invaluable. The responses were received maybe affected by incorrect memories both positive and negative which are why an idea survey could have been undertaken over the process of the merger.

References

Timothy J. Galpin, (1996) ‘The Human Side of Change; A practical guide to organizational redesign’ Jossey-Bass, USA pp 117.

Eliezer Geisler, (1997) ‘Managing the aftermath of radical corporate change: engineering, restructuring and reinvention’, Quorum Books, London pp 39

Timothy J. Galpin, (1996) ‘The Human Side of Change; A practical guide to organizational redesign’, Jossey-Bass, USA pp39

Lyn Fossum,(1989) ‘Understanding Organizational Change: Converting Theory to Practice’, USA, Crisp Productions

Yukl, Deborah J. Terry and Nerina L. Jimmieson, (1999) ‘ A stress and coping approach to Organisational change: Evidence from three field studies

Deborah J. Terry & Nerina L. Jimmieson ,(1996) A stress and coping approach to Organisational change: Evidence from three field studies,

Psychological Attitudes after Organisational Restructuring: Understanding survivor Syndrome in a UK manufacturing company

Deborah J. Terry & Nerina L. Jimmieson ,Schweiger et al. 1987).” A stress and coping approach to Organisational change: Evidence from three field studies,

Cartwright & Cooper, M Bryant (1993), ‘Talking about change: understanding employee response through qualitative research’ Management Decision.

M, Bryant (2006) Talking about change: understanding employee response through qualitative Melanie Bryant. Management Decision.

Psychological Attitudes after Organisational Restructuring, Understanding Survivor Syndrome in a UK Manufacturing Company. Retrieved 9 April 2008 from http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:aqG7g4i5akAJ:infomgt.bi.no/euram/material/p-chen.doc+Psychological+Attitudes+after+Organisational+Restructuring&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=nz

MITSloan, Inventing the Organizations of the 21st Century, Keywords & Definitions for IO. Retrieved 10 May 2008 from http://ccs.mit.edu/21c/iokey.html

• Appendices

Communication and Co-operation:

Q1 The organisation was open and honest about the changes.

(circle the word/s that best describes your answer)

Strongly………….Agree………….Neither agree………….Disagree………….Strongly

agree nor disagree Disagree

Q2 On a scale of 1 to 5 rate the co-operation between your team members before the restructure

(5 being very high and 1 being very low)

5—————4—————-3—————-2——————–1

Q3 On a scale of 1 to 5 rate the co-operation between your team members after restructure

(5 being very high and 1 being very low)

5—————4—————-3—————-2——————–1

Common Purpose

Q4 The newly restructured organisation has a clear vision of where it wants to go and how to get there.

(circle the word/s that best describe your opinion)

Strongly………….Agree………….Neither agree………….Disagree………….Strongly

agree nor disagree Disagree

Q5 On a scale of 1 to 5 rate your sense of job security since the changes

(5 being very high and 1 being very low)

5—————4—————-3—————-2——————–1

Q6 My work is contributing to the success of the organisation

(circle the word/s that best describes your answer)

Strongly………….Agree………….Neither agree………….Disagree………….Strongly

agree nor disagree Disagree

Q7 My working conditions are better since the changes?

(circle the word/s that best describes your answer)

Strongly………….Agree………….Neither agree………….Disagree………….Strongly

agree nor disagree Disagree

Q8 My effort with my job has increased since the changes

(circle the word/s that best describes your answer)

Strongly………….Agree………….Neither agree………….Disagree………….Strongly

agree nor disagree Disagree

Q9 The changes were a necessary for the growth of the organisation

(circle the word/s that best describes your answer)

Strongly………….Agree………….Neither agree………….Disagree………….Strongly

agree nor disagree Disagree

Q10 Have the changes made any difference to you regular routine.

E.g travelling distance, time spent at work/home, days/hours of work.

(Please give a brief explanation)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q11 The changes were beneficial to me

(circle the word/s that best describes your answer)

Strongly………….Agree………….Neither agree………….Disagree………….Strongly

agree nor disagree Disagree

Organisational Support

Q12 Were there any changes made to your role after the restructure?

Yes

No

N/A

Q13 If changes were made to your role, rate the level of training and support you received from your organisation?

(5 being very high and 1 being very low)

5—————4—————-3—————-2——————–1

N/A

Q14 My organisation has done a good job of keeping the morale high among it’s employees, since the changes.

(circle the word/s that best describes your answer)

Strongly………….Agree………….Neither agree………….Disagree………….Strongly

agree nor disagree Disagree

Q15 The Organisation has helped deal with the stress arising from the changes

(circle the word/s that best describes your answer)

Strongly………….Agree………….Neither agree………….Disagree………….Strongly

agree nor disagree Disagree

Which Company did you come from?

• BPG Onehunga

• Brebner Print St Lukes

• None of the above ( New employee at Highbrook )

If you have any other comments that may assist us with our research, please write them below.