The culture around OKRs often treats the framework as gospel. When teams struggle, the default response is "you're doing them wrong," labeling critics as heretics. This prevents genuine discussion about whether the system is fundamentally flawed, trapping organizations in a cycle of failed implementation.
Related Insights
Instead of a universal definition, "real progress" is achieved by first defining what change you want to see in your organization. You then adapt your ways of working—strategy, discovery, OKRs—to support that specific goal, rather than just following a generic playbook.
OKRs and SMART goals are repackaged versions of Peter Drucker's 1940s "Management by Objectives." This framework was designed for simple, repetitive tasks on an assembly line, making it fundamentally unsuited for today's complex, knowledge-based work where problems have no single right solution.
Instead of setting rigid goals, the OHL framework defines objectives as puzzles. Teams then form hypotheses on how to solve them and are measured on their learnings through a cycle of three questions: "How well did it work?", "What did you learn?", and "What will you try next?"
For startups tackling monumental challenges, complex planning frameworks like OKRs are a distraction. Instead, maintain a clear, ambitious long-term vision and focus the entire company's energy on executing the immediate next step with maximum speed and quality.
In a supportive culture, managing underperformance starts with co-authored goals upstream. When results falter, the conversation should be a diagnostic inquiry focused on removing roadblocks. This shifts the focus from the person's failure to the problem that's hindering their success, making tough conversations productive.
Setting rigid targets incentivizes employees to present favorable numbers, even subconsciously. This "performance theater" discourages them from investigating negative results, which are often the source of valuable learning. The muscle for detective work atrophies, and real problems remain hidden beneath good-looking metrics.
Mandating new processes, like reducing meetings, is ineffective if the collective beliefs driving old behaviors (e.g., lack of trust) are not addressed. To make change stick, leaders must first surface, discuss, and realign the team's shared assumptions to support the new structure.
A common OKR failure is assigning teams high-level business metrics (like ARR) which they can only contribute to, not directly influence. Success requires focusing on influenceable customer behaviors while demonstrating how they correlate to the company's broader contribution-level goals.
Teams often focus on perfectly implementing frameworks like OKRs or Discovery, creating a false sense of achievement. This "alibi progress" prioritizes methodology correctness over creating value in a specific context, leading to lots of outputs but no outcomes.
An all-green OKR or status board is a red flag, often indicating a lack of transparency or fear of failure. A "colorful" board with red and yellow statuses is a positive signal. It shows the team is honest about challenges, fostering a culture where problems are surfaced and solved openly.
