Thinking in terms of outcomes with OKRs
OKRs are often described as helping organisation's to be outcome-oriented but the reality is many organisation's that use OKRs are not outcome-oriented. Why?
This publication explores how leaders can establish the most useful degree of context for work to support the creation of the best possible products. One of the essential elements is framing work as outcomes. To think in terms of outcomes is not a new idea.
It’s an idea almost too obvious that many don’t realise this is not how they are working. Most organisations find their way to a place where most of their investment of effort is disconnected from any real understanding of how those actions might lead to an outcome.
It stands to reason that focusing on what effect you are trying to achieve, for the audience you are trying to provide value to, should be a sensible starting point for work.
So why don’t most people work this way?
It is hard, or at the very least takes effort, and results may not be as immediate as picking something the group wants to do and presumes will lead to the assumed benefit.
A rush-to-solve bias (the destructive side of a bias for action) works against spending time addressing a better understanding of what you are to achieve and what might be an indicator of success.
Solutions or actions have concreteness to them which lends itself to certainty bias where time is spent on something which is known to be more likely for a group to coalesce around than addressing ambiguity or acknowledging uncertainties.
Hero culture or other aspects of company cultures incentivise investment towards actions or doing which could be rewarded through recognition (anything from performance management processes to what leadership provides ‘attaboys’ for, and what they don’t).
These potent factors conspire to lead organisations from the course, like sirens so sinister they lull organisations so effectively, they hit the veritable rocks (‘big rocks’ initiatives, I am sure).
One potential tool for approaching thinking in terms of outcomes is OKRs. OKRs have at their heart a simplicity that is appealing and also some subtle aspects that make them powerful. OKRs have the potential to help organisations to be outcome-oriented. OKRs also have the potential to root an organisation permanently in the cognitive dissonance of believing they were focusing on outcomes but instead they may have found a new way not to.
One challenge is OKRs are not a formalised framework with a common approach that’s widely understood. There’s a lot of documentation out there which describes a much more activity-oriented approach to OKRs rather than outcome oriented. These variations have objectives defined as completing projects or building things for example, but not regard as to whether completing these things makes anything better for the organisation or its customers. I cover this idea in more detail in my post:
Another challenge of OKRs not being formalized is that most documentation of the method is incomplete, leaving big questions unanswered. How to approach alignment? Should OKRs cascade? How to approach different timescales? How to use in planning?
Solutions to addressing the limitations of OKRs are out there but right now these approaches are also not widely adopted. I see an opportunity with my publication to share the great work of others and share my own experiences and learning. I believe the growing adoption of approaches such as OKRs will help power the dialogue about orienting around outcomes and collectively we can help organisations find real value sooner.
If these ideas have you intrigued please follow me here as I work through this expansive topic.
This is one of my favourite articles in your publication so far. Have found myself sharing it a few times recently!