When your organisational development project proves „too successful”
One of the lesser-known challenges of organisational development projects is when managers are dissatisfied with the results of successful change. Increased autonomy, critical thinking and self-reliance of employees, although a declared goal of improvement, often leads to tensions with managers. This paradox is particularly acute in the Hungarian corporate environment, where hierarchical management styles are still strongly present. The article explores how consultants can manage this situation, what expectations need to be managed at the beginning of a project and how to build a bridge between real change and the manager's desire for control.
The case of Peter, or when his organisational development project, success becomes a problem
Péter has been leading the sales team of a Hungarian medium-sized company for 15 years. When he called us last autumn, we could immediately sense the frustration in his voice. „You know, I feel like I've completely lost control,” he began. „We spent six months developing the team, and since then everyone's been doing what they want. I'm constantly being questioned, argued with and when I introduce a new process, someone always has a better idea.”
When we looked at the previous development project that Peter's team had done, the situation became immediately clear. The aim of the organisational development project was precisely, which Peter now sees as a problem: developing autonomous, thinking, proactive team members. The project was a success - so successful that Peter was not prepared for it.
This is not an isolated case. A CoachLab, the ODLaband our other partners in the field of organisational development, we have seen this paradox more and more often in recent years: the organisational development project achieves a spectacular result - and one that was set as a goal at the start of the project - but the manager is still dissatisfied. Why? Because what he asked for on paper has become uncomfortable for him in reality.
The hidden goal of the organisational development project: verbal obedience
Many Hungarian leaders, when they want organisational development, ask for it and start it, does not really want change. Instead, he would like to see staff „working better” - but within an unchanged framework. The manager still makes decisions, but people are happier and more effective in carrying out instructions.
This can be called the „chatty obedience” phenomenon. The leader expects his team to:
- Carry out instructions faster and more accurately
- Show more enthusiasm and commitment
- Bring some small ideas for improvement (which he or she then approves or rejects)
- But don't question the management decisions or the structure
This kind of expectation is deeply rooted in Hungarian corporate culture. According to several studies I have read, a large part of Hungarian organisations still operate in a hierarchical way, with decisions coming from the top and employees primarily in an executive role. A paternalistic management style - where the manager „takes care” of the employees in return for loyalty and obedience - is also common. This pattern is not always reversed even by local subsidiaries of Western companies; hierarchy and respect for authority are often stronger than the flat organisational structure on paper.
But real organisational development is about something else
A real organisational development and the organisational development project is not simply an efficiency improvement (or rather, I would say not only a). Modern organisational development aims to:
- Increase staff autonomy and decision-making
- Develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills
- Strengthen initiative and responsibility
- Reduce dependence on management instructions
These all sound good in a leadership workshop or a strategic planning session. But when these changes actually happen, many leaders realise: not what you expected.
The misunderstanding between the consultant and the manager stems from the fact that they mean two different things by „development”. The leader often refers to development only performance gains while the consultant skills and behaviour development also ends. And when employees really develop - becoming more independent, more critical, more proactive - the manager feels that he or she has „lost control”.
What do we experience in the CoachLab and ODLab projects?
Our experience shows that in the Hungarian corporate environment this paradox is particularly acute. There are several reasons for this:
1. Hierarchical leadership legacy
Hierarchy and respect for authority are deeply rooted in Hungarian business culture. Leadership often implies that „I know what is right”, and it is the job of the subordinates to implement it. When, after a development project, staff start asking questions, suggesting different solutions or questioning certain decisions, the leader does not see this as an improvement, but as a as a loss of power experience.
2. Control and security
For many Hungarian leaders, control means security. When everything is in his hands, there are no surprises; he knows what will happen. Autonomous employees, on the other hand, are more unpredictable - they make their own decisions, which don't always match the manager's ideas. This can create anxiety.
3. The image of the „good worker”
In the Hungarian workplace culture, a „good employee” is often still the one who trustworthy, loyal and non-contentious. In the Western corporate culture, where innovation and critical thinking have become more valued, an autonomous, proactive employee is desirable. For many Hungarian managers, however, even often those who have been „brought up” in a multinational environment with a Western mindset, this is a threat, not an advantage.
The dilemma of the consultant and the organisational development project: when the client is not satisfied with his own success
And this is where the real challenge of the consultancy, the organisational development company, begins. Imagine: you've completed a thorough, well-executed, professional organisational development project. The team has become enthusiastic, proactive and collaborative. The results are measurable: faster decision-making, higher engagement, better ideas, more communication. But the client - the leader - is dissatisfied. 🙁
What can you do?
1. Clarify expectations at the beginning of the project (prevention)
One of the most effective ways to from the start of the project clarify the leader's real expectations. It is not enough to say, „What do you want to achieve?” We need to dig much deeper:
- „What will it mean for you if your team becomes more autonomous?”
- „What decisions would you like team members to make independently?”
- „What decisions do you want to keep with you?”
- „How do you see your role after the project? What will you do differently?”
By asking these questions, the leader can realise that in fact does not want real autonomy in all areas see. And that's fine - but better to know this at the beginning of the project, not at the end.
2. Gradualism and executive coaching in parallel
Once you're in the project and you see the leader struggling to deliver results, it's not enough to just improve the team. The leader must also be supported, to find a new role.
You can call this „management transition„: whereas in the past the manager was the decision-maker and the giver of instructions, now he or she has to play more of a supportive, facilitating role. But this often requires executive coaching. In CoachLab's experience, for managers this transition is not easy, and without external support they often relapse into their old patterns. Whether we are talking about ODLab or CoachLab projects, organisational development or culture development projects always include one or more coaching processes. By area or by position, either one-to-one or team coaching, but it is a really essential part of developing „good” habits and preventing managers or the organisation from falling back into the old operating model, which they have already tried to change anyway because of all the problems...
3. Developing a common language
Organisational developers and the client should (preferably) speak the same language. If the manager sees as „indiscipline” what the organisational developer, i.e. the consultant, calls „initiative”, there is a misunderstanding. It is worthwhile to have regular meetings already during the organisational development project, where you can discuss through concrete examples why what you see is positive - and why this was the goal.
The myth of the overly autonomous worker
However, there is another perspective worth exploring. Is there really such a thing as an „overly autonomous” worker? According to research yes, but rarely.
According to Wharton research, autonomy increases engagement, motivation and reduces burnout. But - and here's the twist - the impact of autonomy depends on how well the values of the employee and the organisation are aligned. If someone is autonomous but does not share the aims of the organisation, it can become a real problem.
So the real question is not whether someone is „too autonomous”, but whether:
- Are the common objectives clear?
- Is there adequate feedback and cooperation?
- Do staff understand the organisational strategy and make decisions in line with it?
If the answer to these questions is yes, then autonomy is not a problem, but Tool.
Levels of development maturity and managerial responses
| Level of development | Team behaviour | Manager's expectation | A real leadership response | What can the adviser do? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beginner (Pre-development) | Passive, executive, awaiting instructions | „I want them to be more proactive” | Satisfied, that's what you know | Clarify expectations at the beginning of the project |
| Developing (Early stage) | Initial questions, suggestions, some autonomy | „It's good that they are starting to think” | A little uncertain, but still supportive | Parallel introduction of executive coaching |
| Autonomous (Mature phase) | Individual decisions, initiative, questions about the strategy | „Wait, this is too much” | Feeling of loss of control, frustration | Establishing a common language, re-aligning goals |
| Self-drive (Advanced) | Taking full responsibility, setting your own goals | „It's chaos, everyone wants something different” | Resistance, return to old patterns | Rethinking organisational structure, new role for the leader |
Hungarian company specificities: what needs to be done differently?
In the Hungarian business environment, the organisational development project has to take into account some specific factors:
1. The paradox of direct communication
Hungarians are generally direct communicators - they say when they disagree with something. At first glance, this would seem to be an advantage in an autonomous culture, but in a hierarchical structure it means that direct communication is only at the same level works well. Upwards - towards managers - communication is often more reserved. This is something to work on in development: how to address the leader in a way that is not perceived as a threat.
2. Paternalistic management style perpetuated
Many Hungarian managers develop a personal relationship with their subordinates, which is generally positive. But the „downside” of the paternalistic style is that the manager's decisions are made on a personal rather than professional basis, and loyalty is expected in return. In development, this pattern needs to be subtly modified: personal caring can remain, but professional dependence needs to be reduced.
3. Slower decision-making and attention to detail
In Hungarian business culture, decisions are made slowly; you want to examine every detail before you act. This is not a problem in itself, but if employees are to become autonomous, the manager must learn to to let go faster certain decisions and trust that the team will handle the details.
The solution to the „too successful” organisational development project: a new framework
If you are already involved in the project and the manager is unhappy because you have been „too successful”, there are some concrete steps you can take:
1. Redefining success
First, we need to redefine what success is for and with the leader. Success is not the team becoming more „compliant”. Success is that the leader finds a new role. No longer the instruction tax, but the the strategist, the mentor, the framework settera.
2. Decision matrix design
It often helps if we work together to develop a decision matrix: which decisions can be taken by staff independently, which after consultation, and which can only be taken by the manager. This clarifies roles and reduces uncertainty.
For example:
- Autonomous decisions: Performing operational tasks, daily communication with clients, minor process improvements
- Consultation decisions: Launch of major organisational development projects, budget changes, introduction of new processes
- Management decisions: Change of strategy, launch of new products, organisational restructuring
3. Continuous feedback and learning
It is important to bring the leader and the team together regularly to assess together what is working and what is not. This is not a „meeting”, but learning process. The leader sees that autonomy is not chaos, but efficiency; the team understands that the management framework is not a constraint, but a support.
What they expected vs. What they got - from the perspective of the leader and the team
| Cast | What was expected from the organisational development project? | What did they actually get? | How do they live it? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manager | More enthusiastic, faster implementation; fewer problems | Questioning, proactive team; more discussion, different solutions | Loss of control, frustration |
| Staff | More freedom; listen to them | Real responsibility; independent decisions | Motivation, but sometimes insecurity |
| Consultant | Autonomous, efficient team; satisfied leader | A functioning team, but a disgruntled leader | Feeling of failure, even though the project is successful |
| Organisation | Better performance, more modern culture | Temporary disruption, then higher performance | Initial difficulties, long-term gains |
Development phases and related challenges
| Development phase | Duration | Team status | Leadership challenge | Organisational development task | Expected conflict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Preparation | 1-2 months | Passive, waiting | Doubt, expectation | Clarify expectations, start leadership coaching | None (yet) |
| 2. Wake up | 2-3 months | Initial questions, proposals | A little nervous, but still supportive | Facilitation, strengthening common goals | Small-scale |
| 3. Self-employment | 3-6 months | Growing autonomy, contentious situations | Feeling of loss of control | Introduction of a decision matrix, executive coaching | Moderately high |
| 4. Maturity | 6-12 months | Independent, responsible team | Looking for a new role | Promoting a new leadership identity | Decreasing |
| 5. Stabilisation | 12+ months | Autonomous, but in line with the objective | Satisfaction, new leadership style | Only occasional support | None |
When should you engage coaching?
In CoachLab's experience, such situations often require executive coaching. While organisational development focuses on the team, on coaching the driver - to process change, find a new role and learn to let go of old control mechanisms.
It is a good idea to start a short coaching process with the manager at the beginning of the organisational development project to prepare him or her for the changes. This is not to say that the driver is „bad” or „problematic” - it is simply that leadership is also developing, and this needs support.
The role of coaching in this context:
- The leader realises his own expectations and fears
- Develops a new leadership identity (no longer the „boss” but the „facilitator”)
- Learn to deal with the discomfort of autonomy
- Practise the new communication style (fewer instructions, more questions)
What have we learned from all this? Advice for organisational developers - sometimes even for ourselves in the middle of organisational development projects...
If you work as a consultant or organisational developer, here are some important lessons to learn:
1. Clarify your expectations - specifically
Don't settle for general answers („I want the team to be more autonomous”). Work on concrete examples: „Do you want team members to make independent decisions in handling customer complaints?” If the manager hesitates, you know there is a protected area.
2. Developing the leader is as important as developing the team
If you only develop the team and not the leader, you are doomed to failure. The leader will not know what to do with his new autonomous team. So always suggest parallel leadership support, whether it is coaching, mentoring or a leadership workshop.
3. Gradualism is key
Don't expect a hierarchical organisation to become a flat structure overnight. Change should happen step by step, with small victories where the leader can experience that autonomy is not a threat but a help.
4. Communication, communication, communication
Regular, frank discussions with the leader are essential. Don't let frustration build up; if you see the signs, speak up immediately and work on it together.
5. Be empathetic - it's hard for the leader too
It is easy to criticise a leader who „can't let go”. But think about it: for years, maybe decades, he has worked a certain way. Now you're asking him to give up the framework he's used to. That's scary. Be patient and supportive - you are not an enemy or a critic, but a partner in this process.
In other words: success is not always what you expect
One of the biggest lessons from organisational development projects, that real change is uncomfortable. When a team becomes autonomous, proactive and reflective, it does not mean that the leader's job becomes „easier” - on the contrary, it brings new challenges.
The role of the consultant is not only to develop the team, but also to prepare the leader for this new reality. And once you're in the organisation development project and the leader is unhappy, you shouldn't give up - this tension can be managed productively if done well.
This challenge is particularly acute in the Hungarian corporate environment, where the hierarchical culture and paternalistic leadership are still strong. But that's why the work makes sense: helping a leader through this transition and teaching them how to lead in a way that lets go without losing everything - the real breakthrough.
In CoachLab's experience, the best organisational development projects are those where it is made clear from the outset that the change applies to everyone, including the leader. And where the consultant doesn't just „deliver” the development, but accompanies the leader and the team throughout the process of finding a new balance.
Ultimately: the overly successful organisational development project does not exist. There are only projects where the success is not what we expected - and that's where the real work begins.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
1. What does it mean that an organisational development project is „too successful”?
We say that an organisational development project is „too successful” when the staff develops (becomes autonomous, takes the initiative) to such an extent that the manager no longer feels comfortable in the new situation. Although the goals of the development have been achieved, the leader did not anticipate how much this would change his role and his relationship with the team. The manager is finding it difficult to work with new, more autonomous colleagues because he is used to the previous hierarchical and controlled way of working.
2. Why is this problem particularly prevalent in Hungarian companies?
Hierarchical management and paternalistic attitudes are still strongly present in Hungarian corporate culture. Managers often build personal relationships with their subordinates and expect loyalty in return for taking care of them. When employees become more autonomous, this upsets this balance. It is harder for Hungarian managers to let go of control because the culture has long been based on the „manager knows all” model. In addition, direct communication creates a paradoxical situation: although Hungarians tend to speak openly, up the hierarchy this works less well.
3. How can this situation be avoided when starting an organisational development project?
The most effective method is to clarify expectations thoroughly at the very beginning of the project. Don't settle for general answers; ask for specific situations: „What decisions would you like your team to make autonomously?” or „What does it mean to you that the team will be more autonomous?”. At the beginning of an organisational development project, it is worth creating a decision matrix that defines which decisions can be taken autonomously by the staff and which are kept by the manager. It is also important to provide parallel executive coaching or support to prepare the manager for his or her changing role.
4. What role does coaching play in organisational development projects?
Coaching is particularly important for managers who find change difficult to manage. While organisational development focuses on the team, coaching supports the leader to process the new situation, learn to let go of old control mechanisms and develop a new leadership identity. Coaching can help the leader to realize his/her own fears and expectations and to practice a new communication style (less instructions, more questions). CoachLab and ODLab experience shows that it is worthwhile to start a short coaching process with the leader at the beginning of the development process.
5. What should the service developer or consultant do if the manager is dissatisfied with the results after the project?
If the manager is dissatisfied with the result - that is, he or she feels that the employees have become „too autonomous” - the task of the organisational developer is to redefine the situation. The first step is to help the leader understand that the result is exactly what he or she originally asked for. Then, together, a new framework, such as a decision matrix, should be developed to clarify where full autonomy exists and where it remains in the hands of the manager. Continuous feedback and learning is important: through regular meetings with the manager and the team to assess what works and what does not. If necessary, suggest leadership coaching to help the leader find a new role for him/herself (no longer the instructor, but the facilitator, the strategist).
