A few reasons - OKRs are often set both organisationally and by teams. You also mentioned bad management - managers manage both their area of responsibility and the people involved (manage is a loaded word).
I am usually going to respond by describing how OKRs have been used in the actual environments I've seen them used. To describe what…
A few reasons - OKRs are often set both organisationally and by teams. You also mentioned bad management - managers manage both their area of responsibility and the people involved (manage is a loaded word).
I am usually going to respond by describing how OKRs have been used in the actual environments I've seen them used. To describe what was the stimuli at the time and what led to using OKRs. You said you had less experience with them so short of trying it yourself when a relevant problem comes up (and you shouldn't if it doesn't) you figure the next best thing is you asked someone who used it in multiple organisations and observed it used in others. If that's why you are asking I am happy to keep sharing.
I've mentioned organisations align these constellations of objectives that exist with teams and company wide through causal trees which map not just the current focus but all relevant theorised causal links (that's helps with theorising where interventions might be taken in a way that's accessible whether you are familiar with the technical systems involved or not). Its remarkable how many organisations I've observed arriving through simultaneous discovery this way of working. So much so I keep writing about it :)
Its also interesting that similar approaches have been described dating back many decades and such approaches feature in the work of Goldratt as one example. Even though there is prior art I say simulataneous discovery because I believe most of the orgs I am referencing arrived through necessity and experimentation rather than necessarily being aware similar approaches had been used before.
You also mentioned OKRs being set that were not considerate of the whole of the system so I think providing some visibility on how teams use them vs how you might imagine teams use them may be helpful.
A few reasons - OKRs are often set both organisationally and by teams. You also mentioned bad management - managers manage both their area of responsibility and the people involved (manage is a loaded word).
I am usually going to respond by describing how OKRs have been used in the actual environments I've seen them used. To describe what was the stimuli at the time and what led to using OKRs. You said you had less experience with them so short of trying it yourself when a relevant problem comes up (and you shouldn't if it doesn't) you figure the next best thing is you asked someone who used it in multiple organisations and observed it used in others. If that's why you are asking I am happy to keep sharing.
I've mentioned organisations align these constellations of objectives that exist with teams and company wide through causal trees which map not just the current focus but all relevant theorised causal links (that's helps with theorising where interventions might be taken in a way that's accessible whether you are familiar with the technical systems involved or not). Its remarkable how many organisations I've observed arriving through simultaneous discovery this way of working. So much so I keep writing about it :)
Its also interesting that similar approaches have been described dating back many decades and such approaches feature in the work of Goldratt as one example. Even though there is prior art I say simulataneous discovery because I believe most of the orgs I am referencing arrived through necessity and experimentation rather than necessarily being aware similar approaches had been used before.
You also mentioned OKRs being set that were not considerate of the whole of the system so I think providing some visibility on how teams use them vs how you might imagine teams use them may be helpful.