> It's almost a malicious compliance attitude towards OKRs. Ok so the objective was to migrate, we got to 70%, well I guess then we're just going to stop doing

> It's almost a malicious compliance attitude towards OKRs. Ok so the objective was to migrate, we got to 70%, well I guess then we're just going to stop doing any more work on it and cause an obviously preventable bad situation. This is a misunderstanding of 70%. The idea is 100% should be a very high standard e.g. increase revenue by $3bn this year, such that even if you hit 70% you'd be happy. I don't think it's specifically about stopping people slacking off and more about pushing people to think differently about the problems they need to tackle. For some things, this is really helpful (such as increasing revenue, customers, etc.) In these cases, if you reach the end of the quarter and stop doing the things that were aiming for that stretch goal, everyone should still be pretty happy with what they achieved. It falls over when you want to do something concrete (like migrating users). It's not a stretch goal at all, it's just the requirements! The 70% target simply doesn't apply in the slightest to this type of work. It's not an argument against setting objectives, just pointing out that OKRs—as taught—doesn't work for this type of work.