Why do OKRs fail?

It is rarely because of the framework itself.

After 15 years helping organizations implement structured performance systems, one pattern is clear:

Execution systems fail for predictable reasons.

You may have seen the full breakdown of the 40 Common Reasons OKRs Fail. That's a lot!

Because these mistakes are not unique to OKRs.

They show up in:

OKRs (Objectives and Key Results)

OGSM

4DX (Four Disciplines of Execution)

EOS (Entrepreneurial Operating System)

Balanced Scorecard

This episode is not about defending an acronym. It is about understanding what actually drives alignment, focus, and measurable results.

Ben walks through the Top 10 reasons execution systems fail:

No CEO buy-in

Unclear why the organization is using OKRs

Confusing OKRs with strategy

Rolling out to too many teams too quickly

Too many OKRs

Key Results that are vague or read like a to-do list

“Set it and forget it” behavior

No internal OKR capability

Inconsistent Key Result scoring

Skipping Reflect and Reset

For each failure pattern, Ben provides a clear and practical fix you can apply immediately.

OKRs are not strategy. They are a vehicle for executing strategy.

Execution discipline must be modeled by the CEO.

Focus requires trade-offs.

Measurable outcomes matter more than activity.

Cadence and reflection turn a framework into a performance operating system.

No execution system works without leadership ownership and internal capability.

If your organization struggles with alignment, inconsistent performance, or stalled strategic initiatives, the issue may not be the framework you chose.

It may be how it is being implemented.

This episode gives you the executive-level clarity needed to diagnose execution breakdowns quickly.

To explore the full list of the 40 common reasons OKRs fail, structured performance systems, OKRs consulting, or strategy execution workshops, visit OKRs.com.

When team members help define key results, engagement rises, ownership increases, and alignment becomes real AND you get more progress on those KRs!

But how do you balance leadership direction with team driven input without going too far top down or too far bottom up?

Ben explores how successful organizations strike the right balance. You will hear why a purely top down approach often disengages teams, why a fully bottom up approach can become inefficient, and how the most effective OKR programs combine clear leadership context with team driven thinking.

You'll learn about a practical approach in which leaders introduce objectives and strategic intent while team members take the lead in defining most key results.

Ben also gives an example of when it can make sense to begin with a more top down first cycle so leadership becomes comfortable with OKRs, and how organizations gradually shift toward stronger team participation in later cycles.

You will learn how this evolution increases ownership, strengthens alignment, and turns OKRs into a shared framework for driving meaningful progress.

If you want your teams to feel true ownership of their goals while maintaining strategic clarity, this episode provides practical guidance to help you build a balanced, engaging, and effective OKR development process.

Alignment is one of the most important goals of OKRs, yet many organizations misunderstand how alignment actually works. In this episode, Ben explains why the common idea of a strict top down cascade often fails, and how real alignment comes from conversation, clarity, and shared understanding rather than diagrams and arrows.

The direct cascade begins with OKRs at the top level, which is a good starting point. However, it requires lower level OKRs to be subsets of higher level OKRs. In practice, this approach rarely works.

Why it fails:

It turns higher level key results into lower level objectives, which violates the distinction between objectives and key results

It discourages critical thinking and ownership at lower levels

Teams copy and paste instead of creating meaningful OKRs

It often reinforces silos rather than cross functional alignment

While cascading may look clean in theory, organizations that rely on strict cascading almost always struggle.

True alignment does not come from structure alone. It comes from shared understanding and conversation.

Instead of cascading, teams should:

Use higher level OKRs as context, not constraints

Clearly explain why their objective matters now

Discuss objectives with leadership to confirm alignment

Collaborate horizontally across teams where needed

In many cases, alignment is confirmed through discussion rather than visual mapping. A team’s objective can be fully aligned even if it does not directly map to a higher level OKR.

Each team should articulate why their objective is important now and how it supports strategy or cross team priorities. This explanation becomes the foundation for alignment.

Alignment occurs when leadership and teams agree on the importance of the objective, not when arrows connect boxes in a chart.

Inspired by practices used at leading organizations:

Leaders review prior results and set direction for the next period while teams draft and refine OKRs through discussion

Teams align their OKRs with higher level goals where appropriate, while allowing room for important work that may not directly connect

All OKRs are published in a shared tracker so everyone can see, comment, and strengthen alignment across the organization

Do

Use higher level OKRs as context for lower level thinking

Explain how each objective connects to strategy through Why Now

Confirm alignment through leadership discussion

Do Not

Use strict cascading to force alignment

Turn key results into lower level objectives

Copy and paste OKRs instead of creating them through critical thinking

Strong alignment is not created by structure alone. It emerges through conversation, clarity, and shared commitment, enabling teams to work together toward meaningful outcomes.

For your 1:1 OKRs Consult, just email [email protected]

Why do OKRs fail?

Not because the framework is flawed, but because organizations repeat the same predictable implementation mistakes over and over.

If you are about to launch OKRs, this episode could save you months of frustration. You’ll learn the most common mistakes companies make when introducing OKRs, so you can avoid them from the start.

If you are already using OKRs, this episode helps you diagnose what may be limiting impact and suggests how to optimize your program for stronger focus, alignment, and execution.

Ben breaks down the first 20 of the 40 most common reasons OKRs fail, based on experience working with hundreds of organizations.

You’ll learn:

The early warning signs your OKRs are drifting off course

Why CEO modeling matters more than templates

How alignment breaks down across teams

The difference between activity tracking and measurable progress

Practical ways to strengthen your next OKR cycle

Whether you’re launching OKRs for the first time or refining an existing program, this episode will help you avoid common mistakes and build a stronger, more effective OKR system.

Learn more at www.OKRs.com

Note: This complete list of 40 is based on Ben's 15 years + experience and the team at OKRs.com. Shout out to Ana Venosa, Peter Kerr, Padmini Sathish, Nash Billimoria, Manos Koumantakis, Yuval Yeret, and Roger Longden for their input as well.

Many organizations already track KPIs and wonder whether OKRs replace them, duplicate them, or conflict with them. In this episode, Ben explains why this is a false choice. OKRs and KPIs work together. The key is understanding how they differ and how they connect.

KPIs do not have a universal definition. Some companies call every metric a KPI. Others use KPIs only for performance evaluation or compensation. Some track a few KPIs, others track thousands.

Key results, however, do have a clear definition.

How will we know we have made measurable progress on a specific objective by a certain date

OKRs focus attention. KPIs monitor performance.

A KPI becomes a key result when it is the focus for near term improvement.

Metric key results typically move a KPI from X to Y within a timeframe.

Example:

Objective: Achieve financial targets

Double revenue from 5M to 10M

Increase gross margin from 20 percent to 25 percent

Increase recurring revenue from 400K to 600K

Each key result moves a KPI.

Metric key results directly move a KPI.

Example:

Objective: Make growth more sustainable

Launch marketing automation system

Reduce marketing cost per lead from 100 to 95

The first is a milestone. The second is tied directly to a KPI.

Defined in context of an objective

Linked to compensation

Visibility

Maintenance versus improvement

Timeframe

Cross functional alignment

Controllability

Origin

OKRs and KPIs are complementary not competing

A KPI is a key result when it becomes the focus for near term improvement

A KPI is a health metric when it is monitored but not actively improved

Use clear training examples to help teams distinguish KPIs from key results

Contact Ben@OKRs for a free 1:1 OKR Consult!

One of the most sensitive and important decisions in any OKR implementation is how OKRs relate to performance reviews and compensation. Get this wrong and you risk undermining trust, discouraging stretch thinking, and weakening your entire OKR program.

Ben explains how OKRs and performance management should be distinct but related and why finding the right balance matters.

Wrong Answer 1: OKRs are the performance management system

Wrong Answer 2: OKRs have nothing to do with performance

Include OKRs in performance discussions through structured coaching questions

OKRs help individuals focus, learn, and improve. Many organizations incorporate OKRs into performance conversations using structured reflection questions such as:

Impact — Which key results did you most influence

Focus — How did OKRs help you prioritize your work

Communication — How did OKRs improve alignment and collaboration

Learning — What did you learn and how will you apply it

Some organizations hold separate OKR and performance conversations. This separation often strengthens clarity and increases meaningful manager employee dialogue throughout the year.

Do not use key result scores to calculate bonuses

Compensation should not be based on whether a key result is scored commit target or stretch. Linking scores to compensation encourages low targets and weakens stretch thinking.

However, the value of a metric may still influence compensation. For example:

Revenue growth may impact bonuses based on actual results not the score

Some key results may not connect to compensation at all but remain critical for learning and improvement

The distinction is subtle but essential. Scores guide learning and expectations not compensation.

Do

Engage HR leadership and executive sponsors early

Understand the current performance management system

Incorporate OKRs into performance conversations through structured questions

Do Not

Use key result scores to calculate bonuses

Launch OKRs and a new performance system at the same time

Begin with individual level OKRs which can blur the distinction between OKRs and evaluation

Done correctly, OKRs strengthen coaching, learning, and alignment without becoming a performance rating system. This balance enables teams to pursue ambitious goals while maintaining trust, clarity, and long term execution strength.

Request your free 1:1 Consult via [email protected]

If you want a practical simple and proven approach to drafting publishing and tracking OKRs this episode will help you build the foundation for a successful and scalable OKR program.

Many teams jump straight into OKR software expecting it to solve everything. Ben explains why the most effective OKR programs begin with a simple clear process before introducing tools and automation.

You will learn why many successful organizations draft OKRs in one environment such as Word or Google Docs refine them collaboratively and then publish final OKRs in a single shared location often a spreadsheet.

Ben explains how separating draft OKRs from published OKRs improves clarity alignment and accountability and why jumping into software too early can create confusion rather than progress.

You will also discover the importance of creating a single visible OKRs tracker that becomes the source of truth for your organization helping teams stay aligned focused and accountable throughout the cycle.

And here is the best part

So many OKR coaches will tell you that Milestones need to be avoided at all costs. KRs must have a number or they are terrible!

But hold on, what does Ben think?

Learn about the 3 types of Key Results and think through whether or not you should allow Milestones!

There are three types of key results: metric, baseline, and milestone. Metric key results are the most common. They look like “move metric A from X to Y.” Baseline key results are used when X is not being measured and your client seeks a metric to reflect progress on a given objective. Your client should only put in the effort to establish a baseline if they expect to use that baseline as the starting point for a metric key result in a future OKRs cycle.

Most leadership teams define a solid set of metric key results for top-level objectives. However, many teams struggle to define metric key results.

Dozens of teams send us their OKRs for feedback each year. Their key results often look more like a list of tasks that reflect work output rather than measurable outcomes. Unlike metric key results, milestone key results tend not to include numbers. Milestones are binary—they are either achieved or not. Given that milestones are notorious for reflecting work output rather than outcomes, should milestone key results even be allowed?

Some OKRs coaches advise avoiding milestone key results entirely. On page seven of his OKRs book, John Doerr credits Marissa Mayer with her observation, “it’s not a key result unless it has a number.” However, in this same book, Doerr provides examples of milestone key results such as “develop a demo.” (SEE NOTE AT END)

Marissa might not be happy with this key result! As an OKRs coach, you work with your client to transform draft key results that often look like a to-do list into refined key results that reflect measurable outcomes. Here is a hypothetical OKRs coaching conversation to make this concrete:

Client: My key result is to develop a demo.

Coach: What is the intended outcome of developing this demo? How will we know the demo is a success?

Client: Well, the demo is a success if we can get positive customer feedback, but all I can commit to is developing the demo this quarter. It will be quite a stretch to get feedback.

Coach: OK, what will be demo’d and how will we know it is developed?

Client: We’re developing a demo for product X and our sales team decides if it’s developed and ready to be used. Ultimately, it is our customers that will decide if it’s a valuable product.

Coach: Are you committing to presenting the demo to the sales team or to customers?

Client: I can’t commit to showing it to customers. That is the decision of the sales team. I can commit to presenting the demo to our sales team.

A bit more OKRs coaching might lead to the following refined key result that (1) focuses on outcome, (2) distinguishes between a commitment and a stretch outcome, and (3) specifies what is being “demo’d” and who decides it is “developed.”

type="example"

Key Result: 3 customers sign an agreement to purchase product X after viewing the new product X demo

Commit = present product X demo to our sales team for feedback in our test environment

Target = present product X demo to five prospects with feedback on likelihood to purchase

In this hypothetical coaching conversation, the draft key result, “develop a demo,” becomes the commit level of progress. However, the stretch key result now reflects customer interest in the product. It is the number of customers interested in the product that reflects the needle the client is ultimately trying to move. Marissa would likely approve now that the key result has a number.

As an OKRs coach, you help your client translate milestone key results like “produce a demo of product X” into aspirational outcomes like “three customers sign an agreement for product X” that move a metric rather than simply represent completion of a task. Therefore, we might conclude that all key results should be metrics. However, while we recommend defining mostly metric key results, our clients often choose to define milestone key results as well.

Rather than declaring all milestone key results are bad, we invite you to consider the possibility that milestone key results can be used to reflect outcomes not output. Consider the following two milestone key results one of our clients drafted: (1) Present requirements to obtain a permit to build houses in Portland to leadership team and (2) Obtain a permit to begin new construction in Portland. The first milestone is a task that reflects work output. One person should be able to research required documentation for a permit and schedule a meeting with leadership. However, the second milestone is not a task; it is a potential key result that reflects a binary outcome. Ask questions to guide your client to move from task-like milestones that reflect work output to key results that reflect outcomes.

Coaching Takeaways

Note:

In reviewing John Doerr’s book, Felipe Castro, an OKRs expert and good friend of mine, notes: “Out of the 60 Key Results listed, 32 (53%) lack numbers. They include things such as “Create a retirement plan for all legacy technology,” and “Focus on hiring player managers/leaders.” Even John Doerr’s own OKRs from his days at Intel lack numbers (e.g., “Develop a Demo”).

This is the first in a series of episodes featuring "Real OKR Implementation" stories.

Many organizations adopt OKRs because they want focus, alignment, and execution discipline.

But small and fast-growing companies face a unique challenge:

GoNoodle, a company focused on helping kids stay active and engaged, successfully launched OKRs in a growth-stage company in just 18 days!

After raising new capital, GoNoodle entered a period of aggressive growth. Leadership knew that without a clear system, the organization could quickly lose focus.

As their co-founder described:

“The growth plan was aggressive. We knew it would introduce a new level of complexity and potential chaos. How would we stay focused on the right things? How would we define and measure our most important work?”

They discovered OKRs and immediately saw the potential — but also understood the risk:

“Failure to launch OKRs well could jade the staff and undermine the whole effort. We had to get it right.”

So they moved quickly — but intentionally.

GoNoodle launched OKRs in just 18 days. But speed alone wasn’t the secret. Structure and cadence were. They began by defining company-level OKRs, then worked closely with each department to translate strategy into measurable team-level outcomes.

Along the way, they discovered: “Writing good key results is an art. In theory it’s simple, but it was much more difficult than expected.”

They also recognized the value of defining success upfront: “We set the scoring criteria for every key result at the time of creation. This was difficult — and extremely valuable.”

Within weeks, OKRs were visible across the company and supported by a regular execution rhythm.

The GoNoodle experience closely mirrors what we now formalize at OKRs.com as a two-cycle launch model, designed to build both clarity and capability.

At GoNoodle, this included defining company OKRs first and ensuring each team’s objectives directly supported the company’s direction. They reinforced this through leadership reviews and shared visibility. As their co-founder explained:

GoNoodle reinforced OKRs through:

“OKRs became part of our operating DNA.”

Following the OKRs.com structured approach, GoNoodle experienced:

If you are launching OKRs in a smaller or growth-stage company:

If you’d like to learn how to launch OKRs using our 3-Phase approach over 2 cycles, contact:

[email protected]

Thanks for listening!

Are you suffering from OKR planning fatigue? Are you feeling like you're always behind?

Before 2019, most teams set OKRs each quarter by default. That's just how it's done. But is that what's best for you?

One of the most practical decisions in any OKR implementation is determining the length of the OKR cycle.

Should it be quarterly, four months or longer?

Ben explains why cycle timing matters and how the right cadence can strengthen focus alignment and execution across your organization.

You learn why most organizations begin with a common cycle length typically quarterly and why very short cycles often fail to provide enough time for meaningful progress.

Ben also explores when a four month cycle can be more effective how cycle timing may vary across different levels of the organization and why strategic OKRs often remain stable throughout the year while operational OKRs evolve more frequently.

Drawing on real world examples including multi tier OKR structures used in large organizations this episode provides practical guidance for choosing a cycle length that balances learning execution and adaptability helping teams build a sustainable rhythm for long term OKR success

Request a free 1:1 OKR consult via [email protected]