Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Michael Starnes's avatar

One common thing I've seen with OKRs is teams biting off way more than they can chew, especially with the sky high aspirations of the OKR model. Having too many OKRs, too aspirational OKRs, or ones that aren't bound by time enough all facilitate a lot of failure, especially with actually implementing change that would result in them being completed.

I think one thing leaders and ICs could do to actually make sure they deliver on OKRs is focus on what needs to change to actually do those KRs.

Often times this just translates into more activity for reps or more calls, emails, and higher deal volumes. Which in theory is great, but if we're creating layover goals that overlap general increases in ARR we're not saying much.

There are a million things that can lower conversion rates and rep efficiency, but most orgs don't have the candor to actually self reflect and change them. You covered much of what I'm highlighting here, but I think the ultimate differentiator is that most teams are not willing to self reflect about what is stopping them from doing those KRs.

Hierarchy, lack of experimentation , and volume over value in terms of rep activity sink tons of A/B state companies, but most leaders don't have the candor to embrace the change to actually knock out their OKRs.

Having reps call different firms or embrace new techniques isn't hard, but selling it to internal leaders who were taught differently can be the hardest of all.

No posts

Ready for more?