Green Bank

This case was about Green Bank and their efforts to introduce change within the
system. Initially, they were met with cynicism and skepticism but everything turned out
to be better in the end. Green Banks leadership tried to inject change in the system at a
pace where employees started to be overwhelmed and burn out became a problem
leading to the resignation of many. When it comes to change, communication plays a
big role in the process, it is the most effective way to reduce resistance.
1. Initially, Green Bank experienced a lot of resistance to the changes. Could
this resistance have been avoided? How?
When planning for change, be ready for the natural reaction that all humans have to
change. We can all it resistance, call it getting over the hump, call it fear or any other
label, but its something we all do. Especially those old people who are used to what
they are doing for years.
Resistance can be avoided by proper communication, leaders should create
opportunities for the employees to vent out their feelings. One of the most effective way
to deflate fear is to talk through it. I personally would like to suggest the management to
listen, they must be willing to hear the legitimate and the not so legitimate concerns of
the employees and the stakeholders. You dont have to agree with them and you
certainly dont want to excuse them from the change just because they complain, but
sometimes the act of listening to a person talk thru fear is enough to help them diffuse it.
Leaders should also be honest, if the new way of doing things involves giving
something up that the employees are very fond of, youd better provide a good
alternative or youd at least bring an acknowledgement that you are adding hassle to
their lives. Green Bank leadership was very relentless when giving hassle to the
employees, thats why most of them transferred to other banks.
Also, look for creative ways to ease them into chance, Green Bank on the other
hand introduced change abruptly. A suggestion would that, they could continue on with
the old way for a while as they learn the new way. Set a solid date for when you will
totally eliminate the old way of doing things but also account for a period of transition.

Well, just like flying implementing change can include dealing with occasional
turbulence. While change agents may be held to a higher standard when it comes to
accepting new things, it doesnt mean they cant resist from time to time too.

2. A major change was the replacement of key leaders. Do you agree with
such a strategy? What are the pros and cons of this?
Many of the employees were let go because they did not want to embrace the
changes Green Bank was facing, many of them were skeptical whether the changes
were right for the company. Those who resisted were replaced with people who were
willing to work for the betterment of the organization. I agree with the strategy of
replacing key leaders in the organization, especially functional heads. I need people
who can adapt to change, ones that are flexible when given a new system. If the
managers do not agree with the plans, he or she are more likely to play passiveaggressive roles.
The replacement of key leaders itself brings about change to the work place. It is
important that businesses actively discuss a leadership transition with their employees
and clients, and explain what it will mean for them. A set back of replacing key leaders is
that, you have to invest time and money to train your replacement.
A failed business us the result of poor performance. Poor performance is the result
of an incompetent or dysfunctional leadership team. All successful companies are
successful for different reasons, but dysfunctional companies are dysfunctional in the
same way.
3. What employee concerns did Green Bank chose to ignore or not address?
Do you agree with this? Why or why not?
Green Bank management was quite harsh when they said they would weed out
the organization, Those who cannot stand the heat better leave the kitchen, Andara
said. I do not agree with their trial by fire method. They were introducing change
relentlessly without giving the employees the opportunity of giving feedback, it was

either youd go with the change or you are out of here, type of leadership. It was not
fair for the employees if they were given only two choices, whether to perform or to
leave.
I believe in connecting with the people I lead. Give people the time you like to be
given, let them know youve got there back and appreciate them. Talk, Listen, Show,
Share. Connecting is how youll hear things, sooner rather than later. Connecting is
how youll learn more, inspire more and how youll encourage people to make better
things happen. Have more frequent and meaningful conversations about what it is
you and your team do and the value you bring to the world. Show people the big
picture more often and help them connect to it personally. Invite people to see things
from your view, your vantage point so theyre more informed and get better at
solving problems with you and without you.
4. If you were part of the team handling change, how would you have
managed the change differently?
In organizations today, the rate if change has never been more rapid or more
constant whether the change is a small one, like the implementation of a new
system or a much bigger one such as a company takeover or merger. The way that
change is managed makes all the difference to its success or failure. Good change
management is essential for supporting leaders to effectively drive change
throughout the organization. In my opinion, people rarely welcome change, as
human beings we tend to be adverse to change and in a world which is increasingly
changing at an alarming rate, people can be skeptical and resistant to anything that
threatens the status quo of their working lives. With this in mind, introducing change
and transformation has to be done carefully, sensitively and collaboratively.
Firstly, I would try to connect with my people. Communication is key.
Communicate the rationale behind the need for change. The first stage of
introducing change is to explain to employees why it is important for the change to
occur and the intended benefits. This needs to be handled carefully and
communicated to all affected parties. There should also be adequate opportunities

for the involved parties to voice out their concerns and contribute their thoughts,
views and opinions. Missing out on communication will almost certainly damage the
change process and it could invoke fear and resistance within the organization.
Unlike what Green Bank did, I would like to introduce the change in phases.
Change is usually best received when it is implemented in bite size pieces, unless of
course, this is impossible. Most change can be broken down into phases that can be
reviewed along the way.
Lastly, of course, we should evaluate the change, careful monitoring of the entire
change process is essential in order to be able to measure its impact and evaluate
its success. People need to be kept informed about how things are progressing, the
results that are occurring and whether the change has met its objectives.
An organizations intention when introducing change is usually to make
improvements. It is therefore important that employees understand why the change
is done.

School of Graduate Studies

Central Philippine University
Jaro, Iloilo City

Critique Paper on
Growing Your Organization:
The Green Bank Experience

Presented to:
Raquel L. Polec-eo, Ed.D

In partial fulfillment
Of the Course Requirement
In Human Behavior Organization

Submitted By:
Deo Michael Gabriel R. Llamas
MBA-2