Teams often self-limit output because they know overperformance will simply raise future targets to unsustainable levels. This "prison of expectations" incentivizes predictable mediocrity over breakthrough results, as employees actively manage goals to avoid future failure.
Related Insights
Drawing on Charlie Munger's wisdom, investment management problems often stem from misaligned incentives. Instead of trying to change people's actions directly, leaders should redesign the incentive structure. Rational individuals will naturally align their behavior with well-constructed incentives that drive desired client outcomes.
Startups aim for non-linear outcomes yet often default to conventional, linear compensation bands. To properly incentivize breakthrough performance, founders must reward employees who have a disproportionate impact with equally disproportionate pay, breaking from standard practices.
Focusing on individual performance metrics can be counterproductive. As seen in the "super chicken" experiment, top individual performers often succeed by suppressing others. This lowers team collaboration and harms long-term group output, which can be up to 160% more productive than a group of siloed high-achievers.
When founders define success by external metrics like net worth or exit size, the target constantly shifts upward upon achievement. A $1 million goal becomes $10 million, and a single exit becomes a need for multiple. This creates a perpetual cycle of striving without ever feeling successful.
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.
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.
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.
Rewarding successful outcomes incentivizes employees to choose less risky, less innovative projects they know they can complete. To foster true moonshots, Alphabet's X rewards behaviors like humility and curiosity, trusting that these habits are the leading indicators of long-term breakthroughs.
Biologist William Muir's 'super chicken' experiment revealed that groups of top individual performers can end up sabotaging one another, leading to worse outcomes than more cooperative, average teams. In business, this 'too much talent problem' manifests as ego clashes and a breakdown in collaboration, undermining collective success.
