Classic OKR writing mistakes and pitfalls
Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2025 9:11 am
Pitfall #1: Failing to differentiate between committed and aspirational OKRs
Labeling a committed OKR as aspirational will increase the chances of failure. The team may not take it seriously and may not change their other priorities to focus on delivering the OKR.
On the other hand, failure to achieve OKR targets will create defensiveness in the team.
Trap #2: Business-as-usual OKRs
OKRs are often based primarily on what the team thinks they can achieve without changing anything they’re currently doing, rather than what the team or its customers actually want.
Trap #3: Timid OKRs
Aspirational OKRs often start with the current state and effectively ask: “What could we do if we had extra staff and were a little lucky?” A better approach is to start with: “What would my or my clients’ world look like in a few years if we got rid of most of our constraints?”. By definition, when you first formulate an OKR, you won’t know how to get to that state — that’s why it’s an aspirational OKR. However, without understanding and articulating the desired end state, you can’t guarantee that you won’t be able to achieve it.
Litmus test: If you ask your customers what they really want, does france mobile database your ideal goal meet or exceed their requirements?
Trap #4: Deliberately Underperforming
A team’s committed OKRs should consume most but not all of their available resources. Their committed + aspirational OKRs should consume a bit more than their available resources. Otherwise they’re effectively under-committing.
A team that can meet all of its OKRs without all of the headcountcapital of the team . . is assumed to be either hoarding resources, not pushing their teams, or both. This is a cue for senior management to reallocate headcount and other resources to teams that can utilize them more effectively .
Pitfall #5: Low-Value Goals aka “Who Cares?” OKRs.
Labeling a committed OKR as aspirational will increase the chances of failure. The team may not take it seriously and may not change their other priorities to focus on delivering the OKR.
On the other hand, failure to achieve OKR targets will create defensiveness in the team.
Trap #2: Business-as-usual OKRs
OKRs are often based primarily on what the team thinks they can achieve without changing anything they’re currently doing, rather than what the team or its customers actually want.
Trap #3: Timid OKRs
Aspirational OKRs often start with the current state and effectively ask: “What could we do if we had extra staff and were a little lucky?” A better approach is to start with: “What would my or my clients’ world look like in a few years if we got rid of most of our constraints?”. By definition, when you first formulate an OKR, you won’t know how to get to that state — that’s why it’s an aspirational OKR. However, without understanding and articulating the desired end state, you can’t guarantee that you won’t be able to achieve it.
Litmus test: If you ask your customers what they really want, does france mobile database your ideal goal meet or exceed their requirements?
Trap #4: Deliberately Underperforming
A team’s committed OKRs should consume most but not all of their available resources. Their committed + aspirational OKRs should consume a bit more than their available resources. Otherwise they’re effectively under-committing.
A team that can meet all of its OKRs without all of the headcountcapital of the team . . is assumed to be either hoarding resources, not pushing their teams, or both. This is a cue for senior management to reallocate headcount and other resources to teams that can utilize them more effectively .
Pitfall #5: Low-Value Goals aka “Who Cares?” OKRs.