OKR: No more roles please!

This growing OKR boom in Latin America is quite visible. The SARS-COV 2 Pandemic has called into question the viability of long-term plans. In this sense, many organizations have chosen to add mechanisms that allow them to continuously adapt to their environment and it seems that OKRs have responded much better than our old KPI model. Even today, OKRs are already going through a third wave of evolution, different from the one started by John Doerr in the 80s.

This has meant that professionals from multiple companies are looking to enter the world of OKRs and the offer, unfortunately, has not been very encouraging in our language (it seems more varied in English). Most training processes are wrongly based (from my perspective), on an understanding of knowing OKRs through the definition of objectives and key results and their operational interrelation through roles. That is the main problem, in my opinion.

Reasons why you should avoid having stable roles (OKR Champion, OKR Master, OKR Coach, OKR God, OKR Avenger, etc.)

1. You increase bureaucracy.

Having defined roles may require more structured spaces for coordination between them. This raises the barriers to knowledge entry and distorts the plurality that an OKR seeks.

2. You individualize responsibilities.

Having roles such as OKR Champions, OKR Masters or OKR Coaches means that you individualize responsibilities that are collective in nature. This leads to the team ignoring responsibilities that should fall to everyone.

3. You centralize information.

By having roles, a lot of information is centralized in that role as they have "responsibilities" to fulfill. This adds an additional layer of bureaucracy (which is not bad, but unnecessary). Having roles can increase information silos.

4. You deconstruct the internal capacity of the team.

Teams have limited capacity. Each member is a key part of the team, with a particular dedication. Centralizing responsibilities in internal team roles can lead to misaligning the available capacity of this person and unbalancing the structure or division of labor that teams naturally achieve.

5. You increase costs.

A team should have an OKR when the expected benefit is greater than the expected cost. This means that not all teams necessarily need to have OKRs (but at least they should be governed by one). Assuming roles can cost you an additional investment that can make having OKRs unviable.

6. You have a skewed view of the process.

Each role sees the process from the perspective of its role. There is no systemic view of the model. The key is not that each role takes charge of a part of the N2N (end-to-end) process, but that the team managed with OKRs does so and self-organizes to address the various needs of the process.

7. You generate a Status model.

Unnecessarily, a status model is generated by adopting roles. Who is more important, the OKR Coach or the OKR Master? If for some reason they contradict each other, who has the last word? Who defines the process, the OKR Master or the OKR Champion? This model can lead to unnecessary discussions and conversations. More unnecessary conversations, less operational efficiency, higher costs.

8. You will need to invest time (and money) in developing the roles.

When working with roles, you will need to work hard on developing the profiles (which are usually temporary). You will need to invest time and effort in defining training, design, planning, monitoring, and closing spaces between the members of each role. You will need to create a system that you will need to share the responsibilities of the OKR Champion or OKR Master with the team (to gain autonomy).

9. They are a means, not an end.

Having roles leads to thinking that having OKRs is a necessity, but they are not. Having OKRs is a means to achieve clarity, focus, alignment and business conversations. OKRs are a means, an excuse to bring the business closer to the team's conversation table. It is not just about having them, it is mainly about understanding them.

10. You don't need them.

You have been told commercially that you need to have roles for your adoption to be viable. Nothing could be further from the truth. OKRs must be viable in and of themselves. They must be attractive, understandable and valued. This is not promoted with roles, it is promoted with a full understanding that must come from clear leadership convinced that the value provided is greater than its cost. Having OKRs is a political gesture and an organizational understanding that goes beyond ad-doc promoters.

---

Conclusion

Having OKRs should be a natural and organic exercise that a company should adopt. Note that I am talking about adopting and not implementing. You adopt what you believe is valuable, you implement what another believes is valuable. This exercise should be based on plurality, collectivity and consensus. It is not an exercise that should be sought by force or obligation.

Roles reinforce the idea that something has to be done because it has to be done, and we do not start from the understanding that it is truly useful or profitable. OKRs should not generate more bureaucracy than already exists in the organization. It should be a commitment to redistributing existing capabilities and having a collective model and not an individualistic one of adoption.