The problem with OKRs

OKRs as we know them were specifically designed as an operational tracking model, where objectives represent an operational goal and key results are operational milestones that would help track the goal. In theory, everything is perfect, of course, in the late 60s when they were created. In the complicated context (where there is more organizational stability), OKRs work perfectly. Yes, they are designed for more static contexts, where the waterfall is their way of bringing them to the business.

Today we constantly deal with a complex context, where solutions are no longer known and organizations deal with uncertainty and even chaos. OKRs as we know them do not behave well. Not knowing how to deal with a problem without a solution, it is quite complicated to be able to define a work/validation roadmap (which is what OKRs traditionally aim to do). Unfortunately, many people were carried away by the benefits that OKRs meant for many companies at the end of the 19th century.

OKRs entered Latin America as a fad, as a good practice that “had” to be implemented because it had worked for other organizations. This model reached its peak by being directly linked to agile methodologies, which supported various transformation models in recent years. Many of these organizations adopted methods and techniques brought by some consulting firms, with little experience but a lot of desire, and sometimes, that is not enough.

This poor understanding and comprehension of the enabling capacity for transformation caused many organizations to give up on OKRs, as they saw them as more of the same. And yes, as they were sold, they were KPIs with goals. A serious mistake.

Along the way, several curious professionals began to explore some variations and challenge some deep-rooted concepts of this management model. Post Covid-19, organizations in Germany, India, Egypt, Peru, Colombia and Chile began to challenge the traditional OKR model.

This wave of experiments has led us to explore various questions: Is the same mindset that we bring with models such as KPIs, Balanced Scorecard or SMART Objectives the one we should apply to have OKRs or is there something different? What are we looking for with OKRs? Is it a governance model or a means to understand the business? Do we really need all teams at all levels of the organization to have OKRs? Is it better to have milestones, projects or deliverables as key results or indicators? How do we think about it systemically and not locally? How do we make it more efficient? How do we generate greater value for the client and the business with OKRs? And finally, is it worth continuing to call a model that is genuinely different from its predecessor by the same name?

Each question, in particular, connects with some defining characteristic of OKRs. That is why this new model is called Lean OKR. Many of the answers are defined more within the Lean environment and its principles. It does not change its traditional structure (made up of objectives and key results), but the core is renewed.

At Lean OKRs, we believe that this new nature will redefine the way we know OKRs and will make it more valuable, closer and, above all, simpler, because if there is a way to face complexity, it will always be with simplicity.

Welcome to the era of Lean OKRs.