Not all approaches to OKRs are the same (and some are better than others)
Objectives & Key Results (OKR) is not a formalised framework. There’s lots of diversity in approaches and as a result, there’s a lot to consider when looking for reference material or coaching support.
As I covered in Common problems in OKR reference material there is no formalisation of the approach to OKRs. There’s significant variance in some of the fundamental concepts from source to source. It’s not always easy to spot because the most obvious elements are consistent — the basic form is that there are ‘objectives’ represented by a short sentence and there are ‘key results’ which describe a measurement, normally numerical. Peer a little deeper and the differences become stark and important. In this post, I will start to provide you with what to look for when assessing resources, references and consultative support you might need to engage to support you on your OKR journey.
But first, how did we get here? How is it possible there are material differences in the fundamental concepts of OKRs between resources? Well, some frameworks have publishing and consulting businesses behind them. Others have foundations and board structures and review structures responsible for maintaining and evolving standards. And thus usually there is a single reference source that drives consistency even if there are many consultancies adding their own flavour. For OKRs however, the adoption has been fairly organic and whilst there’s definitely been books published and consultancies springing up focused on OKRs, none have the central authority or consolidation to have influenced the same sort of consistency.
I’ve moved to Substack so please resubscribe there to get posts as soon as they are written:
Difference #1: Outcome-oriented vs faux-outcome-oriented
The most significant diversion in approach to OKRs is in whether they are outcome-focused or not. Unsurprisingly this is a key concern for this publication Focus on Outcomes. One of the purported selling points for OKRs is that they support an outcome-oriented approach. The reality is that many examples of using OKRs found online are not focused on outcomes. Many OKR coaches fall short of this yardstick and most OKR tool providers present the same problem.
I am not dogmatic about this issue — I will concede there are scenarios where it may make sense to make an exception where an objective might be closer to being an action rather than an outcome. For instance, it sometimes will make sense to set a process goal, for instance, a common one might be making a quota of calls for a sales team. The exception is acceptable because we know the causal relationship between the activity and achieving a higher-level goal such as making more sales. But most of the time this is not the situation so in most cases I advocate that goals should describe the outcome or effect we are trying to achieve.
The gravity of this is easy to overlook as organisations still may find OKRs even when defined mostly around outputs/actions are a step forward for their organisation. The introduction of more transparency and regular cadences to inspect and review progress may address key issues for them and an area for potential improvement. Additionally, some of the cultural aspects of OKRs such as those expressed in this excerpt from Measure What Matters can be a positive shift for organisations:
Ideas such as ‘set goals from the bottom up’, highlighting ‘collective agreement is essential to maximum goal achievement’, ‘Dare to fail’ by suggesting ambition over conservatism in goals and reminding that goals are ‘a tool, not a weapon’ are all important principles which can help with the success of using goals in an organisation.
This approach falls short though as it leaves on the table some of the biggest potential benefits an organisation can derive from using OKRs. Namely to provide the clarity that people in organisations are looking for to be best empowered and able to connect to what the organisation is trying to achieve. Objectives that are defined as outcomes can provide this much better than output-oriented as I cover in:
Important history and key aspects of the concepts behind OKRs are captured in Measure What Matters. One thing that may have contributed to this situation is that Measure What Matters (MWM), still likely the most influential book on OKRs, has shared many output-focused OKR examples. A possible reason for this is many examples from the book are from other well-known organisations such as Google and Intuit with real-world examples of OKR implementations and with the purpose to illustrate specific principles of OKRs.
We need to recognise John (who is also very upfront he is passing on wisdom acquired from Andy Grove) is a part of the history of OKRs being used in organisations. No doubt these organisations achieved significant improvement by the introduction of the concepts of OKRs. For instance companies such as Google, one of the companies John is credited with introducing OKRs to companies and Intel where Andy Grove is credited with introducing OKRs (referred to as iMBOs at that time). The varying quality of examples in the book needs to be seen in that light.
Since then there’s been a growing shift towards more discipline around ensuring OKRs are defined to be outcome-oriented. Organisations including Google where Doerr had the most publicity around the use of OKRs have moved in this direction. These examples have become to be viewed in a negative light by the part of the community (of which I am one) who believes, that, where practical, objectives should describe outcomes to be achieved. It’s possible that this has been a barrier for the group behind MWM has not emerged as the overall steer for the formalisation of OKRs. Or possibly they hold the view that a more flexible approach can help provide a more gradual learning curve, improving adoption and the finer points around defining goals to be outcomes are something that can come later, sort of a crawl-walk-run if you will.
I am a believer in crawling, walking and then running as well but I also like to know if there are better first steps to be taken. In this series, I will provide you with some factors which can enable effective navigation of the options for adopting OKRs. In future posts, I will cover what to look for in supporting resources, whether or not to use OKR tools, how to approach communications, what cadences and supporting practices can help enable successful adoption, and how to pair the WHAT of OKRs with the WHY, how to select 3rd party coaching support and much more.
Originally published at https://wioota.substack.com on June 28, 2022.
