4 ms·
I think OKRs are required to communicate intent and targets. It is a great way for communication "across" and "upwards". But it is a shitty tool "downwards". S
by nine_zeros 3y ago
I think OKRs are required to communicate intent and targets. It is a great way for communication "across" and "upwards".
But it is a shitty tool "downwards". Suddenly you have managers insisting that a feature must be rolled out before the 31st of March, even though rolling out 2 days later will be safer.
It creates perverse incentives such as OKRs used for "individual" performance reviews when in reality, a lot of work is team/x-team/group effort. It causes ICs to play corporate games.
- takinola 3y agoBut that's an issue with how the OKRs are derived rather than if the OKRs are required. If the teams come up with OKRs with bottoms-up involvement then the issue you mention is mitigated. The fact that a thing can be done badly is not an argument for not doing the thing.
- nine_zeros 3y ago> If the teams come up with OKRs with bottoms-up involvement then the issue you mention is mitigated This still does not solve the problem that "individuals" are scapegoated for OKRs defined by someone else. I have actually seen people getting fired for not delivering on OKRs, which were ultra ambitious in the first place. The problem was not ambitious OKRs. The problem was individual consequences for team/management ambition. > The fact that a thing can be done badly is not an argument for not doing the thing. Sure, but this doesn't prevent discussion and bringing the failure modes to the fore. In fact, I would suggest that Gen-z and gen-alpha will be very difficult to hire and keep because they naturally understand the BS that OKRs are, having been exposed to BS games in school, college and with friends.