Why are OKRs popular ?

OKRs have some powerful elements not all of which are always immediately apparent. Here are a few that I've found helpful for improving alignment.

OKRs are a powerful yet incomplete ideaPhoto by alleksana from Pexels

I cover Objectives & Key Results (OKRs) in the context of the wider thinking on how organisations can work towards outcomes, understand their progress and fulfil their purpose. OKRs are a popular approach organisations use to help build alignment toward an outcome and are likely the most common tool for this purpose in use across organisations today.

Previously I shared an emerging body of ideas I see in use across the industry which I suspect will become the new orthodoxy as those ideas are tested and evolved into more commonplace usage. I also set the scene with a through-line of ‘thinking in terms of outcomes’ that will carry through my series of articles.

The approach has some powerful and not always obvious elements. Let’s look at what some of these are:

1. It’s a deceptively simple format
   Consisting of a short layperson’s description of the objective and 2–4 short descriptions of how that might be measured is a remarkably accessible approach that helps adoption and increases the likelihood of people trying it as an approach.
   
   It’s easy to get to a point where you feel like you understand the basics and put them into practice.
   

2. Alignment & common understanding
   The most significant aspect of OKRs is their ability to approximate common understanding amongst people.
   
   Here’s an exercise you can conduct at most organisations with fairly predictable results. Take any currently running initiative everyone in the group is aware of. Divide into groups and have each group draft their version of this goal. Coming back together to review and compare different drafts as the whole group we will invariably notice big differences. This is a practice I encourage for drafting and ensuring debate and resolution of real differences of understanding.
   
   This approach is also effective when we do the same for key results. Think of each key result as points of agreement or triangulation of understanding. With each clarification and negotiated understanding, we now have an OKR for which the divergence of understanding is far less because of the refined objective and qualifying details the Key Results provide. There are still more traps to bring this undone which I will cover in a future post.
   

3. An opportunity to adapt
   If you have selected key results that are suitably leading indicators of progress towards your objective then progress, or lack thereof when hypotheses of what might realise your objective are invalidated, can inform whether it is necessary to pivot or cancel (if you can overcome the urges the sunk cost fallacy stimulates). I liken this to the many course corrections a rocket makes to navigate toward a celestial body.
   

4. Encourages lateral thinking
   A property of many OKR bibles or frameworks (not all for reasons I will cover in the future) is to suggest that OKRs should be ambitious. This quality when present in an OKR puts a team in a situation where they start without the full knowledge of how they might fully achieve their goal. This creates the need to expand the ideas under consideration, often in my experience discovering not previously considered options that often present a shorter or more effective path. This lateral thinking continues in point 3 above where progress against an ambitious goal continues to stimulate options (especially where the need to adapt is obvious).

Do you agree with these elements? Are there any important ones I missed? Let me know in the comments.