8 ms·
This is the key of the article: “ Those successful companies aren’t successful because they use OKR’s. They use OKR’s because it is designed to leverage the e
by gregdoesit 6y ago
This is the key of the article:
“ Those successful companies aren’t successful because they use OKR’s. They use OKR’s because it is designed to leverage the empowered product team model.
And as I have tried to make clear with years of articles and talks, the empowered product team model is a fundamentally different approach to building and running a tech-product organization.”
Amen to this. Google is an example company that claims to have had great success with OKRs. But let’s not forget that before OKRs, they had empowered teams, a growing market which they disrupted and grew, and a unique culture.
My bet is they would have done spectacularly well without OKRs, using some other method as well. You can’t say that OKRs caused Google to succeed, and they certainly won’t be enough to turn a company or org around, like the author argues.
- codesuki 6y agoThanks for the tldr. Maybe good to always add that when posting a link :) Also from the article: "You can’t take your old organization based on feature teams, roadmaps and passive managers, then overlay a technique from a radically different culture, and expect that will work or change anything."
- sukilot 6y agoRegardless of whether OKRs are meaningful or important (IMO they aren't), Google had OKRs in 1999, less than a year after founding, before AdWords. They didn't have notable product teams before OKRs.
- staticassertion 6y agoGoogle seems terribly run, frankly. I wouldn't use them as an example of good process, organization, or really anything other than that being early to advertising and being the internet's front page for ~20 years is a great way to make money
- packetlost 6y agoThis. Google seems to not have anyone with a cohesive vision or even anyone that knows how to build a platform or maintain a product. I personally would like to know what's going on with the product owners at Google, because it really seems like none of them talk to each other. Google is a fantastic engineering company, but terrible at building products.
- staticassertion 6y agoI don't know that they're a fantastic engineering company. I don't know what Google is great at - a few things, which feel like they're successful almost because they're treated as separate from the rest of the organization. OKRs are one of many parts of that, in my opinion.
- mahmoudimus 6y agoGoogle engineering is fantastic and respectable. What gives the impression that it is anything else other than excellent?
- staticassertion 6y agoMy personal opinion is that Google has some really strong engineers, and some pockets of engineering are truly exceptional. That is it. The impression is based on lots of anecdotal experience. I know many people at Google, I use many Google products, I talk to other industry leaders about their impressions of Google.
- deleted 6y ago
- ck425 6y agoIs Google success because it's a well run company in the first place? It's obviously not terrible (I'd personally love to work there) but life is a lot easier when you have the biggest cash cow ever plus a few smaller ones. In general I'm skeptical whenever anyone wants to copy Google as their advantages and disadvantages are so far removed from a typical company and always were. I don't think they're a particularly good company to model for most companies.
- garyrichardson 6y agoBack when it was popular to have a flat structure or no managers or whatever I started suggesting "Every type of management works until money gets tight." I think the principle still applies, but a more useful/general version is pick your structures and processes around resource availability (good vs bad times): Good Times: pick something that can amplify abundant resources. There is going to be less bureaucracy around decisions and spending so move quickly and place lots of bets while you can. Bad Times: pick something that works with meagre resources. You're going to spend more time justifying spending.