nostalgia for the closed facility. Locus of control analysis found 42.4% of narratives exhibiting internal attribution, indicating latent personal agency. Change Agents showed a 12.9:1 internal-to-external ratio, while workers Requiring Intervention showed near-parity (1.2:1), suggesting a relationship between perceived agency and productive potential. Social interaction strategies revealed cooperative orientations predominating at 14.8% versus 3.4% individualist/competitive combined, yielding a 4:1 cooperation ratio. Perceived facilitators exceeded barriers 4.4:1, with training mentioned 57 times as primary facilitator—suggesting that organizational conditions fundamentally support change, though specific capacity-building needs remain. Game theory analysis identified worker-supervisor interactions as repeated games with imperfect information. Strategy distribution revealed: 63.3% cooperate with change, 23.3% passive resistance, 8.3% active resistance, and 5.0% selective adaptation. Multiple Nash equilibria coexist across work groups: Groups 1 and 4 achieved cooperative optimal equilibrium, Group 2 remains trapped in suboptimal mutual-resistance equilibrium (stable but inefficient), and Group 3 occupies transitional instability representing a critical intervention window. Three coordination dilemmas—“who moves first” mutual waiting, trust deficit from broken promises, and early-adopter social costs—explain why uniform interventions have historically failed. Based on Maskin’s (2007) mechanism design theory, five mechanisms were proposed to modify payoff structures toward mutual cooperation: visible recognition, participatory decision-making, stability guarantees, supervisor early-adoption modeling, and collective benefit alignment. 4.3 Workforce Segmentation The quadrant model classifies workers based on two meta-indices: Base Capabilities (Discipline + Motivation)/2 on the X-axis, and Enhancers (Commitment + Attitude)/2 on the Y-axis, using empirically-derived median cutpoints (X=3.984; Y=3.675). The classification revealed a bipolar distribution with 63.4% concentrated at extremes: Change Agents (31.7%, n=19; Productivity Index M=65.3) showing high scores across all dimensions and concentrating in Groups 1 and 4, and workers Requiring Intervention (31.7%, n=19; M=33.5) presenting multiple deficits and concentrating in Group 2. The intermediate quadrants—To Prepare (18.3%, n=11; M=50.9) with high capabilities but low commitment, showing the highest reconversion concentration at 36.4%—and To Monitor (18.3%, n=11; M=55.2) with high enhancers but low motivation, represent transition potential (see Figure 1). 222
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2