February 12, 2025 • 52 mins
What’s next for OKRs in 2025?
As goal-setting evolves, organizations are rethinking their approach to strategy, execution, and performance. In this episode, Sara sits down with OKR experts Natalie Webb and Maria Rowcliffe to unpack the latest trends—from the role of generative AI to the shifting landscape of OKR localization and performance management. Whether you’re an OKR veteran or just getting started, these insights will help you stay ahead of the curve.
Episode Highlights:
- How generative AI is reshaping OKR creation and workshop efficiency
- The shift away from rigid OKR cascading toward functional team-level alignment
- Why OKRs should not be directly tied to performance evaluations or compensation
- The biggest mistakes organizations make when implementing OKRs—and how to avoid them
- The evolving role of OKRs in strategy execution and business impact
- What to expect from the future of OKRs in 2025 and beyond
Key Concepts Explored:
Generative AI in OKR Practice
- Role of AI in data analytics and predictive modeling
- AI as an enabler vs. driver of outcomes
- Practical applications in OKR workshops
- Limitations and considerations
Modern OKR Localization
- Shift from cascading to hybrid approaches
- L1-L2 alignment strategies
- Bottom-up contribution methods
- Functional team focus
OKR Integration
- Separation of delivery work and outcomes
- Project management integration
- Performance management considerations
- Leading indicator identification
Implementation Strategy
- Starting points for organizations
- Common pitfalls to avoid
- Methodology vs. tool selection
- Change management considerations
Episode Chapters
[00:00:00] Introduction and welcome
[00:01:00] Book announcement: You Are a Strategist
[00:04:00] Guest introductions
[00:08:00] Generative AI's impact on OKRs
[00:17:00] Using AI tools in OKR workshops
[00:21:00] Evolution of OKR localization
[00:33:00] Discussion of individual KRs
[00:41:00] OKRs and performance management
[00:47:00] First steps for OKR implementation
Notable Quotes
"Generative AI is an enabler, not a driver. It’s a tool that supports goal-setting, but the real work still comes down to humans collaborating, making great decisions, and executing." – Maria Rowcliffe
"If we set our OKRs well, teams should feel empowered to say no to work that doesn’t align. Prioritization isn’t real unless it hurts." – Natalie Webb
"One of the hardest parts of OKR creation is identifying leading indicators. AI can help generate ideas, but the real challenge is getting teams to think beyond the obvious KPIs." – Maria Rowcliffe
"Not everyone needs their name on a Key Result. This isn’t a participation trophy—what matters is understanding how the work contributes to the bigger strategy." – Natalie Webb
"If you tie OKRs directly to performance evaluations, you create a system where people set safe goals instead of ambitious ones. That’s not what OKRs are meant to do." – Sara Lobkovich
Guest Information:
Natalie Webb is an OKR expert with nearly eight years of experience in the field. She currently works with Aramco in Saudi Arabia, supporting their digital transformation and AI initiatives. Natalie specializes in helping organizations implement effective OKRs that drive real business impact.
Maria Rowcliffe is an organizational behavior specialist with over 30 years of experience in management and strategy execution. Passionate about how organizations and people...
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Welcome to the Thinkydoers podcast.
Thinkydoers are those of us drawn todeep work, where thinking is working.
But we don't stop there.
We're compelled to move the work frominsight to idea, through the messy
middle, to find courage and confidenceto put our thoughts into action.
I'm your host, Sara Lobkovich.
(00:23):
I'm a strategy coach, a huge goal settingand attainment nerd, and board-certified
health and wellness coach, working atthe overlap of work, life well-being.
I'm also a Thinkydoer.
I'm here to help others find moresatisfaction, less frustration, less
friction, and more flow in our work.
(00:46):
My mission is to help changemakers likeyou transform our workplaces and world.
So let's get started.
Hello, friends, and welcome tothis week's Thinkydoers episode.
I am super excited to getinto this one for you.
This is a replay of a LinkedIn andYouTube live that I hosted a couple
(01:11):
weeks ago with my two OKR besties,Maria Rowcliffe and Natalie Webb.
They are both brilliant practitionersin their specialties, which we
talk about in the episode, and I amjust so excited that they decided
to join me for this conversation.
It went so well, we're going todo this again, probably quarterly.
(01:31):
We've already got the next one set upfor Q2 because we had so many questions
we couldn't answer in this first one.
So if you want to be the first tohear about the Q2 State of OKRs with
Natalie, Maria, and myself, join myemail list at ck.redcurrantco.com
Now, before we get into the episode,if you're a regular viewer, you'll
notice things look a little differentaround here today, maybe even sound a
(01:55):
little different on the audio version.
That's because I am literally todayrecording the audio book for You Are
a Strategist (02:03):
Use No BS objectives and Key Results to Get Big Things Done.
It's not, of course, going to allhappen today, but we are starting
the audio book recording today.
And I am super excited.
We have an ebook launch date set.
We have a print launch,hopefully the same day.
(02:25):
It might trail by a week.
And then I'm getting the audiobook done as quick as we can to try
and get it out at the same time.
We'll see if that becomes impossible.
But it's really important to methat this book is as accessible as
possible, and you're able to choosethe format that works for you the best.
So we're going to get them all done asclose to the same launch date as possible.
(02:46):
And you can find out more about thatbook coming up at youareastrategist.com.
From there, you can sign up to bepart of the street team, which is
the folks who will help get the wordout when that book is available.
Because friends, I can't do this alone.
I need your help.
So visit youareastrategist.com.
You can sign up for the advanced team.
(03:08):
You'll get some extraspecial access beforehand.
You'll be the first to hear aboutall the dates and everything that's
coming up with the book launch.
And I really just can't wait tohave your help in getting this
book to the people who need it.
In other news, the 24, or itwas actually 28 hour approach to
(03:28):
the No BS Strategic AchievementIntensive was a massive success.
So that is how I'm going to deliverthat material live from here on out.
So if you might wanna join me in Q2 forthis intensive packed, it isn't actually
24 consecutive hours, it's not a marathon.
We work for a couple hours.
(03:49):
We take the night off, havedinner, get some sleep.
We get back together the nextmorning and we go until either noon
or early afternoon, depending onif you stay for the bonus time.
If you would like more information aboutthat intensive, the best way to find
out about it is to join my mailing list.
And again, that's ck.redcurrantco.com.
All right, without further ado,I can't wait to get into this
(04:12):
episode with Natalie and Maria.
I just cannot thank them enoughfor doing this live with me.
And I really can't wait for youto join us for the next one.
So, before we dive in, I'm Sara Lobkovich.
I'm your host today.
I'm the host of the Thinkydoerspodcast and the creator of No-BS OKRs.
(04:32):
I am super excited thatthese two said yes to this.
So I'm going to let Natalie introduceherself and then Maria, and then we'll
dive right in with our conversation.
Who am I?
Natalie Webb.
I've told a few people about thispodcast live stream, and they've
referred to us three as the dream team.
So I'm super excited tobe here with you gals.
(04:55):
I've been in the OKR space nowfor almost eight years, I guess.
So, it works.
I think that's why I stickwith it, because it's great
to see results with clients.
So, that's me
I don't know if you can tell uswhere you're located right now.
I am currently in Saudi Arabia.
I'm working with Aramco and the verysmart people there in the digital
(05:20):
transformation and Aramco AI groups.
Well, welcome and Maria, welcome.
Thank you so much.
You know, I love that No-BS OKRsbecause that you speak in my language.
But thank you so much for having me.
A little bit about me.
So, I have been seriously passionateabout understanding how organizations
(05:43):
and people in them, actually moreprobably so, become successful.
And, back in the day when I wasgetting my MBA, we had to choose
what to study for a whole semester.
And the two options were finance andcapital markets and organizational
behavior and management.
And out of my whole year, therewere 16 of us that chose to study
(06:07):
management and organizational behavior.
And I was obviously one of them.
And that was very much around howdo organizations make decisions
and how do they execute them?
And ever since then, this is kind ofwhat I've been passionate about, and
just like Natalie, I've used a lotof different frameworks in the past.
And OKRs, I would say, has the potentialof having the most transformative changes.
(06:32):
But there's a lot of ways and makingit go wrong and also a lot of ways
of making it go right, which is whatwe're going to talk about today.
But that's what I've been spendingover 30 years at this point.
And I think between the threeof us, we have just a ridiculous
amount of experience of this.
Hopefully, there's going tobe some useful stuff we say.
So that's a little bit about me.
The last thing I just want to say,because I always get this question, "Where
(06:55):
are you from?" because of my accent.
I'm Swedish, but I've livedin the US now for 35 years.
And the fun fact is my dad's nameis Leif Eriksson, and so it doesn't
really get more Swedish than that.
And it was his birthday.
Aw.
Oh my goodness.
Well, happy birthday ,pops!
I always love the conversations we haveMaria is like the chief of staff person.
(07:20):
I mean, there's so much more to you,you're one of the folks that I look
up to for chief of staff support andchief of staffing and the life of
chiefs of staff and the role of achief of staff as a leader strategist,
not just the ops and admin side.
So Maria's a champ there.
And then, Natalie, is like asuper smart, sciency patentee.
(07:44):
There's so much more to you.
So beyond just being incredible OKRexperts, I am just really excited
to introduce more folks to bothof you because you've got such
incredible experience in OKRs.
And then, like a lot of us in thisfield, OKRs are the only thing we do.
Like we're drawn to OKR so that we can bemore effective in what we do elsewhere.
(08:09):
Let's start with Natalie, sinceyou're kind of in this space.
How do you see generative AI and,potentially other emerging technologies.
But right now, generative AIis what is on everyone's minds.
How do you see generative AI affectingor reshaping goal-setting practices?
Yeah, and a common questionI get all the time.
(08:33):
I'll tell you, my answer to this questionhas changed just this year, honestly, and
that's really because of the technologythat's come out around quantum computing.
Google came out with thetechnology to do that.
Being able to look back at all of thisdata and to decipher what all that data
(08:54):
means for predictive analytics, formachine learning, for creating models that
work and ones that don't is just crazy.
This idea, of course, I'm workingwith a very talented folks at Aramco.
But Forbes is calling this ability tosearch through history of data the new
(09:16):
black gold, which is an interesting playon words given where I am in the world.
Data as a service and providing quickbusiness decisions based on decades and
decades of data to the element level.
I'm a nerd about data visualizationand the quantum computing piece of it.
The ability to learn quickly fromall of that history and turn that
(09:39):
into predictive analytics forgenerative AI is mind-blowing.
Long ago are the days of ones and zeros.
And doing it In the old way, being able todo it simultaneously and quantum computing
is just amazing and amazing place to be.
I'm I'm super excited aboutit because of that aspect.
I will say I've I've seen some trepidationwith health care related clients.
(10:02):
They're afraid, yeah, you guys have to.
But in the technology sector,preparing for digital disruption
is an opportunity, and not a fear.
So that's what I'm seeing.
Yeah, that's awesome perspective.
And Maria, what have youseen in your practice?
So, I'm a little bit of Tiggerand a little bit of Eeyore, right?
(10:22):
The Tigger kind of agreeswith what you said, Natalie.
There's a huge opportunity around dataanalytics, data insights, tracking
proactively, managing progress.
That's the Tigger part.
The Eeyore part is thatthis is a tool, right?
This is a tool and anenabler, it's not a driver.
(10:43):
All of this needs to land onhumans, collaborating well, making
great decisions, and execution.
That hasn't changed.
I think very little of the humancondition, and the way we show up, and
we interact with others has changed.
And that's still going to be there.
I know that we're going to talkmore about the hype around this,
but I don't think that this has,this changes the heavy lifting in
(11:06):
terms of how people work together.
I think that's the risk when you gettoo excited about a technology, which
I'm sure all of us have experienced,both ourselves and, with clients.
Me as having been a chief of staffand head of business operations in
lots of companies, I've certainlybeen part of that on both ends.
But I always end with, you know,that goes back to what I have been
(11:27):
excited about all along, which is howdo people actually make decisions?
And so it's a huge enabler and a tool, butit really isn't the driver, I would say.
I love that spending time with youtwo makes me smarter because even
when I wrote that question, I wasthinking about what I've seen.
I've seen a lot of attention on generativeAI for creating OKRs, for filling that
(11:53):
gap of easing the difficulty of creation.
I'm not even thinking about the predictiveanalytics part or the lack of impact
that generative AI might have on theactual "how" of how we work together.
That always just comes down to humans.
I wrote a blog post a couple of monthsago that is now really outdated.
(12:16):
Natalie, I've had a shift just in thelast couple of months where, wrote a
blog post a couple of months ago sayingit's just not ready for prime time.
Like generative AI can'tcreate OKRs as well as humans.
And then I have to say, withthe models having been trained
more, and getting smarter, andthen prompting getting better.
(12:38):
I've been playing with tools, andtrialing tools and I wish I had
recorded my first login to a toolcalled Tability, which the podcast know
Tability because I've, interviewed them.
I'm a fan of them as human beings,but I logged into the tool and I saw
their, AI-facilitated OKR creation.
(13:00):
And I was like, "Oh, let's see how badthis is." And I gave it a prompt and
I was like, "Oh, wow, that's actuallyquite good." I think the outcomes
from generative AI are only as goodas the prompts and the training.
In the right hands, they're a enabler.
For me, they can speed things up.
And far as the impact of the actualwork with people, like for me, they
(13:26):
helped me take my verbal processingand turn it into something that
humans can digest and understand.
For me to be more clear, concise,or ease up more easily, simplifying
concepts, things like that,I find them really valuable.
I just still really struggle withtrust with the platforms, I'm still
(13:47):
a lawyer, so I've read every wordof every agreement and I still had a
conversation yesterday with some of thefolks in my class about, they asked if
I'm using generative AI and they askedif I'm training a model on my work.
And I was like, I mean, forme, certain things, but there
(14:08):
have been some hard line.
while we were talking about it, Iwas like, "Well, if I don't train
a model on my work, someone elsehas done it." So it's just like the
ethics and the environmental impact.
There's so much to it, but I also wentfrom being a pulled out, not going
to use it to now I really do see theutility in some parts of especially
(14:31):
OKR creation with a well-trainedmodel and a well-set up prompt.
Can I ask the questions for either of you?
Have you guys used it with your clients?
How did that show up?
How are you generate it?
Because I certainly have not today.
I have used it, and I don't knowthe number of times I have written
(14:52):
back to is that is not a KR, right?
Because it gives you backmilestones and tasks, right?
I started training my own also,because it's like, "No, that's not
an objective, that's a project." Itstill gives back a lot of that, but I
would love to hear how you guys haveactually used it in sessions or with
clients or organizations you work with.
(15:12):
I'm using it every day with clients now.
That's changed just sincereally like December.
But even as far back as October, manyof my clients have their own version.
If they have a large technical presencethey have their own version of AI, but
I'm finding, even myself, I'm usingClaude and ChatGPT more than I use Google.
(15:40):
And I see it in my sessions, where it'susually to your point where they get to
like, "Hey, I want it to be this," butinstead of going to a thesaurus, they go
to ChatGPT or some sort of AI tool andthey look for words, and it does help
with the creativity, but to your point,Maria, it still has to be vetted that
(16:01):
it's going to drive the result, right?
You still have to have somebody say,"Okay, it may be written accurately, but
is this really what you want to focus yourpeople's time and dollars on?" And then
that goes into the conversation of, isthis really our critical strategy path?
So yeah, I think it can be helpful.
It can also be distracting becausethen they get like five different
(16:21):
examples and then they are moreconfused on which one they like.
Yeah.
I've had clients, likeclients always want examples.
A marketing client wants, "Can youjust show me an example of marketing
OKRs?" And I'm like "No, I don't wantyou to look at those." It's too easy
to look at the example and say, "Okay,that looks good," and then adopt it as
(16:42):
opposed to doing the work of actuallythinking about what is most important
for your business and your timing.
So the way that I'm using generativeAI in my practice is I'm finding it's
helping me speed up my OKR workshops,especially things like objective forming.
Where my approach to objectiveforming is lightning fast.
(17:04):
We don't spend a lot of time deliberating.
We do a quick ideation.
What's important?
Why does it matter?
We put them together.
That's your objective But evenwith that, what I'm finding is
I can get clients to where theyhave concepts for their objective.
So I can get them to concepts and theninstead of having to take the time to
(17:24):
actually get it to a single statement inthe room, I can say, "If it's okay with
you, I'm going to take these concepts,feed them into a model, and give you
some options." So, my workshop efficiencyon objective creation has gone way up.
Once it spits out a coupleoptions, clients can make a
(17:45):
decision of what they want to keep.
takes that objective deliberationout of the workshop and lets us
do it in the final finishing.
And then what I always hope, and thisis why I'm training my own model, is
I hope that we can use these tools tohelp enable people's critical thinking
(18:06):
about creatively creating Key Results.
Thinking beyond the obvious KPIsthey have available, or thinking
beyond what they see in the examples.
Some of the approaches to Key ResultsI work with are pretty out there.
I'd love to be able to help enablepeople's creative thinking about
(18:27):
what Key Results could be beyond theexamples that most people usually see.
But I have the same thing, sometimes whenI'm preparing a training, I'm like, "I
just need an example set of OKRs." And soI'll type in, "Can you give me an example
set of OKRs for a software engineeringteam or for a marketing analytics team?"
(18:48):
And it spits it out, and I'm like,"No, now I have to train the model.
Now I have to teach you what an OKR is."I think in expert hands, the tools are
an incredible enabler, efficiency source.
I just worry about we already struggleenough with methodology understanding
and quality of methodology adoption.
(19:09):
And so I do worry about people puttingtoo much faith in the training of the
models if they don't the expertise.
So one thing that I have done, I'veused it more as an example, which is
to help identify leading indicators.
Because we, I think we all knowwhat the general kind of KPIs are
(19:32):
and the lagging indicators, becausethose are the metrics that we all
know, and maybe not love so much.
But it's the leading indicatorsthat you actually can actively
manage throughout the quarter.
I mean my experience both in my ownthinking as well as working with clients,
that's still the hardest thing to do.
Because that requires morethinking than what we typically
(19:52):
want to spend on stuff like that.
That's why we get milestones andkind of those KPIs that you can
measure twice in a quarter as KRs.
So I use ChatGPT primarily and I havegot it to actually give me pretty
good leading indicators that may notbe what organizations actually should
(20:12):
be managing, to your point, Natalie,just because it's there doesn't mean
that it's actually the right for you.
But I think you just seeing examplesof what those leading indicators
could be, that is a bit kind of outthere, like you said, Sara, right,
can actually help people think aboutit, what it is that they really should
be managing kind of day over day.
I am so glad you brought that upbecause I would agree, the hardest
(20:36):
part of OKR creation and methodologyadoption in my practice, is
leading indicator identification.
That's where I seepeople struggle the most.
So I don't think I've used it for that,but that's a really awesome insight that
continues to be one of the big barriers,even for those of us who do this every day
(20:57):
and have really finely honed approaches touse with clients, clients still struggle
with the leading indicator piece, partlybecause it also means instead of having
the whole quarter to make progress ontheir outcome, it's moving up their
accountability to a nearer time horizon.
So it increases the anxiety.
(21:18):
That's brilliant, Maria.
I think using those tools asa way to get ideas for leading
indicators is really good.
it is.
I agree, too.
And one other thing I've seen recentlyis a shift in accepting functional
team-level sets of OKRs versus,you know, like everybody gets a KR.
(21:42):
Like the Oprah, noteverybody should have a KR
not everybody gets a KR.
This is not like aparticipation trophy thing.
And I think making sure everybodyunderstands how they contribute
to this strategy, but don'thave to have their name on it.
It can be at the functional team level,and they should still know how they're
(22:04):
contributing to overall company strategy.
That's another shift that I've seen.
Is stripping out layers where we can.
So instead of everybody having specificObjectives and Key Results that are
cascaded, how we used to see themblown out, seven layers or levels,
functional teams hovering with likesub-KRs under the top level care
(22:29):
because they're spiky and fast and smartand moving quickly and startups and
they don't have time for the layers.
So that's one thing I'm noticingtoo, cause back in the day we
used to give everybody their ownindividual cares too, and they were
like duplicated everywhere with justnames on them and it, was too heavy.
And so I like that we're stripping outsome of those layers to make it spiky.
(22:53):
I'm really glad youbrought that up Natalie.
And Maria, I'm curious because weall work with kind of different types
of organizations, different sizes.
I'm also seeing what Natalie is, that thelocalization or cascading or connecting
OKRs looks really different now thanwhen I started working with OKRs.
(23:14):
But Maria, what are youseeing in your practice?
I think it's the same.
It has always been the biggest problem.
It's the easiest thing is for theleadership team to set OKRs, even
though of them still struggle withthat because it's like they have the
top-level metrics to choose between.
And that as you go down,it's harder and harder.
(23:36):
I know that we have all created thesedescriptions of what localization looks
like and it is so damn hard to describe itwithout getting all complicated about it.
And so not surprising, that's alsowhat organizations struggle with.
So finding middle ground, how to doit because OKR is still not about
the leadership team setting it.
(23:57):
It is about how people spend their timeactually doing and driving towards it that
happens further down in the organization.
So coming up with good ways for makingthat live, not to the leadership
team, not even a level down.
The third level, typically inlarger organizations, is where most
of that goodness happens or not.
(24:17):
And so, and creating them tobe aligned with each other.
Because if everybody just had their KRsor their OKRs and they're kind of wildly,
kind of not, in alignment, it's, it'snot going to do an awful lot of good
for the organization anyway, or solvingthe problem, which is the reason why
people implement OKRs in the first place.
(24:39):
And so I think it's still a strugglefor organizations to figure out how
to do that at a lower level and,and especially creating alignment.
I don't know about you guys, butI work a lot with organizations
that, have implemented OKRsalready and are not seeing the
value that they were hoping for.
And inevitably there's acouple of things I see.
One is you ask them, whydid you implement OKRs?
(25:03):
And they don't necessarily have agood answer to that other than, "We
want to be more clear a lot," likethey've read a book essentially, right?
But they don't have a why that is aproblem to solve that is relevant and
kind of resonates with the people in theorganization and they don't necessarily
have an intentional kind of structurearound the goal-setting process and the
(25:26):
alignment, how they actually going tohelp their teams get aligned and clear.
But it's more about theleadership team have set OKRs.
And so that means that threelevels on everyone's clear,
which we know isn't true.
We've got a great question in the commentsthat we'll come back to in just a sec.
So folks who are tuned in, if you havequestions at any time, send them through.
(25:48):
I can see them in two differentplaces, and we'll answer as many
as possible while we're live.
It always surprises mehow hard clients struggle.
I would say at this point, I'mprobably doing about maybe 30%
fresh-from-scratch implementations,and about 70 percent reboots, or
(26:08):
we're struggling and we need help.
A lot of the demand I see is.
for help with localizationto the individual.
Like they've gotten started orthey're adopting OKRs because they
want to localize to the individualor because they've read the
book that shows the six layers.
(26:30):
The first conversation I have tohave is that's just not how I do it.
Partly because of the amount oftime it takes, partly because of the
degradation of the, methodology qualityif we go too many layers, and then
partly I was working with a very large,very deep organization and had the
(26:52):
privilege of working with them quarterover quarter for a couple of years.
And so what I saw was they weredoing a cross-functional L1 at the
company level, and then a functionalL2 localization at the org level.
And as they did that, we had high-qualityOKRs at the company level and at
(27:14):
the functional level, we didn'tneed to localize anymore downward.
Like Natalie said, there were someKRs that would roll down from there,
but we didn't see any gain from doingfull localization at like L3, L4.
What we started to see instead wasthat teams could bottom-up from there.
(27:38):
So instead of the systemic, everybodyhas to go down, we'd have that downward
flow from L1, L2, and then at L3, L4for initiative teams, for individuals,
they could look up at L1 and L2 andget the direction that they needed,
either to create work plans and then dotheir delivery, or to create Objectives
(28:03):
and Key Results, or Objectives, KeyResults, and milestones, and work plans.
I still see some orgs do thedownward localization and cascading.
I see it in, control-based leadershipcultures, where it degrades down to
activity micromanagement really quickly.
(28:25):
And I also see it in organizationswhere the L1 leaders aren't creating
OKRs, they're creating something andcalling it OKRs, doesn't actually
fit the definition of OKRs.
Then L2 does their best tocompensate, and then L3, Maria,
you said the magic happens at L3.
(28:47):
that's where the happens at L3.
Because then L3 is like, "Well that's abunch of hooey. So what are we actually
gonna do?" And then they get it.
So, I screen out every once in awhile, I wind up working with one
of those, like, the magics at L3.
I struggle in that environment becausemy and my way just isn't compatible
(29:11):
with those kind of leaders who areOKRs for everyone else, not for me.
That just doesn't, it's nota culture fit to work with me
in that style, but I see it.
But more and more, it's just L1, L2,and then everyone else is bottom up.
So I think that's fine.
But As long as there is actually somekind of structured and formalized
(29:34):
process that says, "Okay, these are theinitiatives that we are working on."
This is how we're spending our timeand planning on spending our time."
Can we articulate how it actually iscontributing to the goals that we have
set or that the organization have set?
It's always scary, right, when people areworking on initiatives and they actually
(29:55):
do not have a clue, or are not veryclear on they would say it's important
or it, but they can't like clearlyarticulate how it is supporting the
strategic priorities of the organization.
And I mean, then the sad part ofit also is oftentimes they then
work on things that don't move theneedle on anything that matters.
I mean, they're done andthey work really hard.
(30:16):
And so it doesn't create purposeful work.
And so I still think, even if the full-onlocalization process that we have all
done in our careers isn't necessarilythe most effective way of doing it.
I still think that having a structureand a process where most teams can
articulate how the work that they aredoing contribute to strategic priorities
(30:38):
and the metrics, and know if they're doingthat or not, is still really important
for any kind of goal-setting processto result in something that matters.
I've spent most of my time with OKRsand strategy planning as the driver
of it internally in an organization.
I think about this differently than ifI am a coach or a consultant where I
don't have the same skin in the game interms of thinking about all the aspects
(31:03):
of execution, including managementpractices and readiness and capabilities
and integration with other stuff.
If you're overseeing all ofthat, you just think bigger.
And you think differently aboutthings than if you're coming in a
more narrow lane to set just thegoals and maybe trickle it down a bit.
I think the distinction I would makeis, it's not that we don't have that
(31:29):
clarity deeper in the organization.
For me, it's just aboutthe directionality.
In the conventional or olderstyle, we would localize
downward the whole way down.
I had one client where welocalized for an entire quarter.
And so what we're doing different nowis, instead of doing that sequential
team by team down the org, we'redoing L1, we're doing L2, and then
(31:54):
we're doing a localization cycle whereeveryone else does their bottoms-up.
So important initiatives create OKRs orwork plans, you know, if it just has
to get done, it's delivery planning.
If it has to yield anoutcome, they create OKRs.
The shift isn't that we're not usingOKRs elsewhere in the organization.
(32:16):
The shift is just on the timingand that everything below L2 or L3,
sometimes we go to L3, but everythingbelow that is in a big cloud.
It all happens at the same time,and then we can do a quick alignment
instead of taking all order todo the sequential localizing.
(32:36):
One thing I used to say, that Istill say to this day, is if we're
setting our OKRs up well, teamsshould be empowered to say no to
other things that get thrown at them.
I still firmly believe in thatbecause it is disheartening to folks,
especially that horsepower, you know,the L3s and fours and five levels,
that are just really crushing the work.
(32:57):
If they have two lists, if they havelike the work that leads up to OKRs
and then all the other stuff, andthey're just over capacity, stretched
too thin, and that's just not visible.
I call those misses, really,because we have to make sure
that they're not spread too thin.
I love working at thedetailed level with folks.
I love traversing L1s all the way to L7sand back again and catch those misses.
(33:21):
I think that's good stuff.
I like doing that.
So we've got a couple goodquestions I want to ask.
Stacey ask some execs expect to seethat even individuals have KRs, or
that everybody's work ties to a KR.
So this kind of gets at whatwe've all been talking about.
(33:41):
But sometimes that's not realistic.
So in the situations in yourpractice where everybody has a KR,
do you have any tactics you use?
How do you handle that when a client isfocused on that "everybody has a KR"?
It's interesting because everyone inthe company contributes to the strategy.
Honestly, even if it's facilities,keeping the facility safe and secure
(34:05):
for people to come and do work,they're contributing to the strategy.
So even though their name may not betied to a KR, it is tied to a body of
work that is showing that the operationis happening, that the lights are on,
doors are open, business is happening.
I like to involve everybody that wecan in those conversations, especially
(34:27):
when they're contributing to the toplevel, so they don't feel left out.
But also, the follow-up questionI get to this is, do you tie
compensation and performancemanagement to individuals with KRs?
Because then it feels weird, and it feelslike Big Brother, and it feels like you're
gonna see some sandbagging if people haveany compensation tied to their Key Results
(34:50):
and they're at the individual level.
So, it does get weird.
I like to hear the functional teamsand carve out that critical bodies
of work is the words I've been usingwith them, to make sure they know
how they contribute, but it's not aparticipation trophy kind of thing.
Not everybody is going tohave their name on a KR.
(35:10):
The logic that I try to use sometimes,more successfully than others, is the
whole concept of focus and prioritization.
So, one of the best leaders I've everhad the pleasure to working with used
to say, "It isn't prioritization unlessit hurts." And the fact of the matter
is, if everybody has a KR, that isnever anyone's definition of focus.
(35:33):
Because then the organization endsup with how many KRs that they're
supposed to be driving towards, right?
And so, it's more around being ableto articulate how the way I'm spending
my time and the decisions that Imake are contributing to those.
I am perfectly fine with saying, "Whichof these KRs do you contribute to?"
It doesn't mean that you own them,that you are the only one who's owning
(35:57):
that, because that's the other concept.
Very few things important in anorganization is done by one person.
Because if it is, it's probablynot all that strategic.
And so it's all about the peopleworking together to make it happen.
So I'm perfectly fine with havinglists that says, "This KR, who are
the people that are the most importantcontributors to that based on the daily
(36:19):
work that they do?" Or even the teams?
Yeah, this kind of dovetails intoanother question we got from Elena.
Understanding that OKRs are nota project management tool, how do
you integrate them without losingthe scope that each should have?
My answer to both questions is connected.
One of the first education steps I dowith clients is that there is a difference
(36:43):
between what just has to get done.
And if getting it done is success,in my model falls under delivery.
That gets projectmanaged, it gets planned.
There might be some KR 'sidentified for change initiatives,
for improving something.
But there's a lot that just hasto get done in our organizations.
(37:07):
And the old language of OKRs, that weneed an OKR for what's most important
in the business, doesn't apply.
Paying the electric bill, andgetting payroll out on time, those
fundamentals that just have toget done are as important as any
innovation initiative we have.
So that's one of our very firsteducation points: If it just has to
(37:31):
get done, it doesn't need an OKR.
And if you don't have OKRs for delivery,for if it just has to get done.
And then, if just getting it done isn'tsuccess, that's where OKRs come in, where
we need to aim for an outcome, or somekind of impact, or success criteria.
(37:51):
Even with that breakdown, it's still hardfor clients to wrap their heads around.
But I find when I start with a new orgwith that model that hasn't implemented
OKRs, and we can get ahead of the what'simportant goes in the OKRs, so everyone
feels like they have to be visible inthe OKRs, it's working pretty well.
(38:11):
People get recognized throughdelivery and project management for
the stuff that just has to get done.
And we have smaller sets of OKRsbecause we can really zero in on
what does this just have to getdone, if so, give it a milestone.
if we have to achieve some sort ofsuccess criteria, then what is it?
So, Elena, that's for me.
(38:32):
kind of the split that we can projectmanage what we do and what we plan
and what has to get done, then wecan use our stretch thinking and
our more expansive thinking aroundwhat's possible on that OKR side.
So, Natalie, you said you hada project management example.
Oh yeah.
So, I think it's important if you have alot of milestones that you're trying to
(38:56):
get accomplished through a project plan.
Whatever project tool you have, theway I like to show that is say, the
KR is deliver all 100 milestones forProject Rocket Ship by the end of Q1,
instead of listing out the milestones.
Yeah.
The body of work.
So then, they can manage the milestones,and a big number that they're
tracking, and it's also leading.
(39:17):
that's one way, but then the milestonesare tracked in another tool or a
robust OKR tool that does tasks,actions, and milestones beneath the KR.
That's really cool.
Because then it also gives the visibility
Yeah, the approach is, I thinkthat the fact that we call it
OKR is part of the problem.
Because it's actually not just OKRs, it'salso the, work that comes after that.
(39:40):
So if it's OKR-Aactions, or I-initiatives.
And so I think if you stop the planningon we the KRs without them saying,
"Okay, what work is actually going todrive us there?" I think that's one
reason why these problems occur, becauseyou have project planning over here
and you have OKR planning over here,and they're not clearly connected.
(40:04):
I think that connectingthe two is important.
Quite honestly, If you identify the KRsthat are milestones or activities and
you go, "Okay, so out of, let's say 15KRs, 12 of them are actually activities,
and milestones, and actions," then youknow that that's not strategic drive.
(40:28):
And they'll say, "Are any of thesethings in a platform or on a plan
somewhere else, then why are you doingKR then?" You're duplicating work.
And the fact is, that I would say thatis one of the main reasons why teams,
especially further down in the org,don't like OKRs, because they feel
like, "Why are we doing this? We'reduplicating things that we already do in
(40:49):
some other platform." And they're right.
I think it's part of the educationalthing that we can help to highlight
initiative, but the current KRs,and how much they are projects and
that actually manage somewhere else.
I have templates when identifying KRsthat also includes a box for "What's
the work that's going to drive it?"And that could be existing initiatives
(41:11):
and projects or new things that weneed to do, so that you help people see
"turtles all the way down," as they say.
I love that.
Turtles all the way down is awesome.
Okay, fantastic.
Now I have a million questions, andwe have, 11 minutes if I'm doing
my math right, so we're going tohave to do this like quarterly.
So, the two things that I want tomake sure we get to first is the other
(41:34):
question I get every time a clientcalls, which is: How do we connect
OKRs to performance management?
What would you two saywhen you get that question?
How do you respond?
Well, I can say it alwaysmakes me a little nervous to
understand their "why" about that.
Is it because you want to reallydrive operational efficiencies
(41:58):
or process re-engineering?
Like, what is it that you want to drive?
If they think people are not workinghard enough, I struggle with that.
It's tough for me because you run intoall kinds of nuances around, how do you
measure one person compared to another,and then do you compensate on that?
And then It gets really weird with money.
And so, I say at the functionalteam level, you're absolutely
(42:20):
going to look at how that team hasperformed against their Key Results.
And did they meet their goals?
Were there wins?
What could they do differently?
And would you factor thatin a performance evaluation?
Absolutely.
But would you also factorlike 15 other things?
Yes.
Are they a good leader?
Do they learn well?
Do they apply themselves?
You know, how are theyshowing up each day?
And so there's lots of other factors.
(42:42):
I would say the bodies of workthat they complete are one of the
elements in performance evaluation,but OKRs are not for performance.
So, the other point that I make iswith OKRs, I at least try to say, "You
shouldn't just focus on setting OKRsaround things you have control over."
(43:02):
No team or individual has control overan awful lot of stuff that's strategic.
You might be able to influenceit, highly influence it.
And if you can't influence it, then havinga KR around it isn't particularly useful.
I think performance management orgoal setting is the complete opposite.
You have to set goals for people thatthey actually have control over or more
(43:26):
influence than things you set around KRs.
And so if you try to marry thetwo, you end up either with
KRs that aren't necessarilystrategic or broad enough, right?
Because you're going to say, "Oneperson can do it," or you're going
to end up with KRs that no personactually can, you know, influence.
And it's unfair to have thembe accountable for that.
(43:48):
And then you're going to haveother problems to solve, right?
With people being held accountablefor things that just aren't possible.
And so I think it comes down toconversations between a manager and
their direct report to say, okay, this iswhat we need to accomplish this quarter
or half-year or whatever cycle theyuse for doing this and say, what is it
(44:08):
reasonable that you will do or contributeor accomplish in this period of time?
And to your point, Natalie, both interms of the outcome that they do,
but also how they do their work route,which is a key thing with performance
management, including what are the newthings, skills, and the new things you
want to get better at, which also iscompletely unrelated to some KRs because
(44:32):
it's part of how you do your work.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I wrote an enormous chapter for the bookon why I'm in the we don't connect OKRs.
We don't connect attainment of OKRsto performance management or incentive
pay because — and we had to pull itout and I'm sharing it as a blog post
(44:53):
because it was like, it was the longestbook chapter in the history of OKRs.
but I think you twocovered it really well.
There is a perspectiveeven among OKR experts.
There is a group I, there'sa position paper out there.
If I can find it afterward, I'll add tothe comments, by one of the trade orgs
(45:16):
where, you know, when everybody startedworking together on it the assumption
was that the industry would say wedon't connect OKRs to performance.
In the creation of that positionpaper, at least the last time
I saw it, there were two camps.
There Is a camp that says, here's how youdo it, and then there's the rest of us
who's like, for me, when clients say theywant to do that, I say, okay, let me tell
(45:40):
you a couple stories about what I've seen.
Is this what you want system to look like?
You know, where people who areambitious and set stretch goals,
get penalized terms of incentive paycompared to people who set conservative
goals and fully achieve them.
(46:01):
you know, so there are a couple scenarioswhere I can say, here's what happens when
you connect attainment to incentives.
This is what happens.
This isn't, you know, afable, like it's what happens.
If you look at the system design of it,here's the system you're setting up.
(46:23):
Is that what you want?
but, uh, but we have, you know,we've developed scheme that factors
OKR contribution into performanceevaluation, but not attainment.
we never ever link it to attainment.
(46:43):
Uh, I think, I think the problem,right, is that, you know, when we say
it shouldn't be connected, people thinkthat the work that people do shouldn't
be actually connected to KRs, whichis obviously not what we're saying.
It's just that it shouldn'tbe a one to one, right?
That you own the KR.
And if that's not achieved, thatmeans that you, your performance
weren't good or wasn't good.
So let's do a speed round.
(47:04):
Cause we're almost out of time andwe've got one other great question.
What is the very first step andunfortunately, it just shows
me linkedin user for this one.
So I can't say who's asking the question.
But what is the very first step foran organization to implement OKRs?
Ooh, I would, I would say have astrategic roadmap in mind, at least an
(47:25):
idea of the critical bodies of work.
Yeah.
So, mine is know your why.
What problems are OKR supposed to solve.
Because if you are not clear onthe why, and the why now, in a
way that resonates with people,they're not going to be successful.
And not because people arebad, but people are busy.
And it requires a new way of thinkingand in order for people to take the
(47:46):
time and energy to do that, therehas to be a compelling reason and
benefit to them to do it just forthemselves as well as the organization.
You guys made it hard for me to thinkof one, because you gave the two best
answers, but, I'll give a spicy answer.
.First step I would say is to lookbeyond the paid search results
(48:07):
from OKR software platforms.
To learn about what'shappening in OKRs today.
Because organizations would dothemselves well to start with a strong
methodology focus, and then figure outwhat tool they need and it's like we
can create tools successfulness if weget methodology established well and
(48:29):
get participation high with methodology.
But so much of everything is dominatedby information from platforms.
I would recommend folks find meon YouTube, or Ben Lamorte, you
know, there are like methodology
Every time we talk to each other I'msurprised at how much we agree on.
(48:52):
And how much we agree on is different fromwhat was in some of the original books,
or some of what we hear from platforms.
So that would be my first step.
All right.
there's another couple really goodother angles to that question,
but we've got a hard stop.
So, LinkedIn user, the rest ofyour questions, I'll make sure
(49:13):
we get an answer to you, eitherin the comments or in follow up.
You two, I want to thank you so much.
This exceeded my hopesand dreams so much.
I knew we were gonna have fun,but this was just fantastic.
So, Natalie, can people find youif they want more information?
I'm on LinkedIn.
Of course.
I work with all the, you know, the,pool of OKR experts is fairly small
(49:36):
who have been in this over eight years.
Uh, of course I work with Ben, OKRs.
I I'm on LinkedIn.
You can find me, I think NatalieWebb and maybe put in, Colorado or
Wyoming, because I think there's a few.
Natalie Webb, find Natalie on LinkedInand then Maria, where can folks find you?
Same thing with me.
LinkedIn is probably the easiestway to find me as well, as long as
(49:58):
you spell my last name correctly,
Yeah, I'm in that boat too.
Awesome.
And then I'm Sara Lobkovich.
You can find me at, findrc.co orat my book website of You Are A
Strategist, yeah, coming soon.
Um, youareastrategist.com.
So you two, thank you so much.
(50:20):
Let's do it again!
Yay!
All right, friends, That's it for today.
stay in the loop with everythinggoing on around here by
visiting findrc.co/newsletterand joining my mailing list.
(50:43):
Got questions?
My email addresses are too hard tospell, so visit findrc.co/contact
and shoot me a note that way.
You'll also find me at@saralobkovich on most of your
favorite social media platforms.
For today's show notes,visit findrc.co/thinkydoers.
(51:03):
If there's someone you'd like featuredon this podcast, drop me a note.
And if you know other Thinkydoers who'dbenefit from this episode, please share.
Your referrals, your word of mouth,and your reviews are much appreciated.
I'm looking forward to the questionsthis episode sparks for you, and I
look forward to seeing you next time.
Welcome to the Thinkydoers podcast.
Thinkydoers are those of us drawn todeep work, where thinking is working.
But we don't stop there.
We're compelled to move the work frominsight to idea, through the messy
middle, to find courage and confidenceto put our thoughts into action.
I'm your host, Sara Lobkovich.
(00:23):
I'm a strategy coach, a huge goal settingand attainment nerd, and board-certified
health and wellness coach, working atthe overlap of work, life well-being.
I'm also a Thinkydoer.
I'm here to help others find moresatisfaction, less frustration, less
friction, and more flow in our work.
(00:46):
My mission is to help changemakers likeyou transform our workplaces and world.
So let's get started.
Hello, friends, and welcome tothis week's Thinkydoers episode.
I am super excited to getinto this one for you.
This is a replay of a LinkedIn andYouTube live that I hosted a couple
(01:11):
weeks ago with my two OKR besties,Maria Rowcliffe and Natalie Webb.
They are both brilliant practitionersin their specialties, which we
talk about in the episode, and I amjust so excited that they decided
to join me for this conversation.
It went so well, we're going todo this again, probably quarterly.
(01:31):
We've already got the next one set upfor Q2 because we had so many questions
we couldn't answer in this first one.
So if you want to be the first tohear about the Q2 State of OKRs with
Natalie, Maria, and myself, join myemail list at ck.redcurrantco.com
Now, before we get into the episode,if you're a regular viewer, you'll
notice things look a little differentaround here today, maybe even sound a
(01:55):
little different on the audio version.
That's because I am literally todayrecording the audio book for You Are
a Strategist (02:03):
Use No BS objectives and Key Results to Get Big Things Done.
It's not, of course, going to allhappen today, but we are starting
the audio book recording today.
And I am super excited.
We have an ebook launch date set.
We have a print launch,hopefully the same day.
(02:25):
It might trail by a week.
And then I'm getting the audiobook done as quick as we can to try
and get it out at the same time.
We'll see if that becomes impossible.
But it's really important to methat this book is as accessible as
possible, and you're able to choosethe format that works for you the best.
So we're going to get them all done asclose to the same launch date as possible.
(02:46):
And you can find out more about thatbook coming up at youareastrategist.com.
From there, you can sign up to bepart of the street team, which is
the folks who will help get the wordout when that book is available.
Because friends, I can't do this alone.
I need your help.
So visit youareastrategist.com.
You can sign up for the advanced team.
(03:08):
You'll get some extraspecial access beforehand.
You'll be the first to hear aboutall the dates and everything that's
coming up with the book launch.
And I really just can't wait tohave your help in getting this
book to the people who need it.
In other news, the 24, or itwas actually 28 hour approach to
(03:28):
the No BS Strategic AchievementIntensive was a massive success.
So that is how I'm going to deliverthat material live from here on out.
So if you might wanna join me in Q2 forthis intensive packed, it isn't actually
24 consecutive hours, it's not a marathon.
We work for a couple hours.
(03:49):
We take the night off, havedinner, get some sleep.
We get back together the nextmorning and we go until either noon
or early afternoon, depending onif you stay for the bonus time.
If you would like more information aboutthat intensive, the best way to find
out about it is to join my mailing list.
And again, that's ck.redcurrantco.com.
All right, without further ado,I can't wait to get into this
(04:12):
episode with Natalie and Maria.
I just cannot thank them enoughfor doing this live with me.
And I really can't wait for youto join us for the next one.
So, before we dive in, I'm Sara Lobkovich.
I'm your host today.
I'm the host of the Thinkydoerspodcast and the creator of No-BS OKRs.
(04:32):
I am super excited thatthese two said yes to this.
So I'm going to let Natalie introduceherself and then Maria, and then we'll
dive right in with our conversation.
Who am I?
Natalie Webb.
I've told a few people about thispodcast live stream, and they've
referred to us three as the dream team.
So I'm super excited tobe here with you gals.
(04:55):
I've been in the OKR space nowfor almost eight years, I guess.
So, it works.
I think that's why I stickwith it, because it's great
to see results with clients.
So, that's me
I don't know if you can tell uswhere you're located right now.
I am currently in Saudi Arabia.
I'm working with Aramco and the verysmart people there in the digital
(05:20):
transformation and Aramco AI groups.
Well, welcome and Maria, welcome.
Thank you so much.
You know, I love that No-BS OKRsbecause that you speak in my language.
But thank you so much for having me.
A little bit about me.
So, I have been seriously passionateabout understanding how organizations
(05:43):
and people in them, actually moreprobably so, become successful.
And, back in the day when I wasgetting my MBA, we had to choose
what to study for a whole semester.
And the two options were finance andcapital markets and organizational
behavior and management.
And out of my whole year, therewere 16 of us that chose to study
(06:07):
management and organizational behavior.
And I was obviously one of them.
And that was very much around howdo organizations make decisions
and how do they execute them?
And ever since then, this is kind ofwhat I've been passionate about, and
just like Natalie, I've used a lotof different frameworks in the past.
And OKRs, I would say, has the potentialof having the most transformative changes.
(06:32):
But there's a lot of ways and makingit go wrong and also a lot of ways
of making it go right, which is whatwe're going to talk about today.
But that's what I've been spendingover 30 years at this point.
And I think between the threeof us, we have just a ridiculous
amount of experience of this.
Hopefully, there's going tobe some useful stuff we say.
So that's a little bit about me.
The last thing I just want to say,because I always get this question, "Where
(06:55):
are you from?" because of my accent.
I'm Swedish, but I've livedin the US now for 35 years.
And the fun fact is my dad's nameis Leif Eriksson, and so it doesn't
really get more Swedish than that.
And it was his birthday.
Aw.
Oh my goodness.
Well, happy birthday ,pops!
I always love the conversations we haveMaria is like the chief of staff person.
(07:20):
I mean, there's so much more to you,you're one of the folks that I look
up to for chief of staff support andchief of staffing and the life of
chiefs of staff and the role of achief of staff as a leader strategist,
not just the ops and admin side.
So Maria's a champ there.
And then, Natalie, is like asuper smart, sciency patentee.
(07:44):
There's so much more to you.
So beyond just being incredible OKRexperts, I am just really excited
to introduce more folks to bothof you because you've got such
incredible experience in OKRs.
And then, like a lot of us in thisfield, OKRs are the only thing we do.
Like we're drawn to OKR so that we can bemore effective in what we do elsewhere.
(08:09):
Let's start with Natalie, sinceyou're kind of in this space.
How do you see generative AI and,potentially other emerging technologies.
But right now, generative AIis what is on everyone's minds.
How do you see generative AI affectingor reshaping goal-setting practices?
Yeah, and a common questionI get all the time.
(08:33):
I'll tell you, my answer to this questionhas changed just this year, honestly, and
that's really because of the technologythat's come out around quantum computing.
Google came out with thetechnology to do that.
Being able to look back at all of thisdata and to decipher what all that data
(08:54):
means for predictive analytics, formachine learning, for creating models that
work and ones that don't is just crazy.
This idea, of course, I'm workingwith a very talented folks at Aramco.
But Forbes is calling this ability tosearch through history of data the new
(09:16):
black gold, which is an interesting playon words given where I am in the world.
Data as a service and providing quickbusiness decisions based on decades and
decades of data to the element level.
I'm a nerd about data visualizationand the quantum computing piece of it.
The ability to learn quickly fromall of that history and turn that
(09:39):
into predictive analytics forgenerative AI is mind-blowing.
Long ago are the days of ones and zeros.
And doing it In the old way, being able todo it simultaneously and quantum computing
is just amazing and amazing place to be.
I'm I'm super excited aboutit because of that aspect.
I will say I've I've seen some trepidationwith health care related clients.
(10:02):
They're afraid, yeah, you guys have to.
But in the technology sector,preparing for digital disruption
is an opportunity, and not a fear.
So that's what I'm seeing.
Yeah, that's awesome perspective.
And Maria, what have youseen in your practice?
So, I'm a little bit of Tiggerand a little bit of Eeyore, right?
(10:22):
The Tigger kind of agreeswith what you said, Natalie.
There's a huge opportunity around dataanalytics, data insights, tracking
proactively, managing progress.
That's the Tigger part.
The Eeyore part is thatthis is a tool, right?
This is a tool and anenabler, it's not a driver.
(10:43):
All of this needs to land onhumans, collaborating well, making
great decisions, and execution.
That hasn't changed.
I think very little of the humancondition, and the way we show up, and
we interact with others has changed.
And that's still going to be there.
I know that we're going to talkmore about the hype around this,
but I don't think that this has,this changes the heavy lifting in
(11:06):
terms of how people work together.
I think that's the risk when you gettoo excited about a technology, which
I'm sure all of us have experienced,both ourselves and, with clients.
Me as having been a chief of staffand head of business operations in
lots of companies, I've certainlybeen part of that on both ends.
But I always end with, you know,that goes back to what I have been
(11:27):
excited about all along, which is howdo people actually make decisions?
And so it's a huge enabler and a tool, butit really isn't the driver, I would say.
I love that spending time with youtwo makes me smarter because even
when I wrote that question, I wasthinking about what I've seen.
I've seen a lot of attention on generativeAI for creating OKRs, for filling that
(11:53):
gap of easing the difficulty of creation.
I'm not even thinking about the predictiveanalytics part or the lack of impact
that generative AI might have on theactual "how" of how we work together.
That always just comes down to humans.
I wrote a blog post a couple of monthsago that is now really outdated.
(12:16):
Natalie, I've had a shift just in thelast couple of months where, wrote a
blog post a couple of months ago sayingit's just not ready for prime time.
Like generative AI can'tcreate OKRs as well as humans.
And then I have to say, withthe models having been trained
more, and getting smarter, andthen prompting getting better.
(12:38):
I've been playing with tools, andtrialing tools and I wish I had
recorded my first login to a toolcalled Tability, which the podcast know
Tability because I've, interviewed them.
I'm a fan of them as human beings,but I logged into the tool and I saw
their, AI-facilitated OKR creation.
(13:00):
And I was like, "Oh, let's see how badthis is." And I gave it a prompt and
I was like, "Oh, wow, that's actuallyquite good." I think the outcomes
from generative AI are only as goodas the prompts and the training.
In the right hands, they're a enabler.
For me, they can speed things up.
And far as the impact of the actualwork with people, like for me, they
(13:26):
helped me take my verbal processingand turn it into something that
humans can digest and understand.
For me to be more clear, concise,or ease up more easily, simplifying
concepts, things like that,I find them really valuable.
I just still really struggle withtrust with the platforms, I'm still
(13:47):
a lawyer, so I've read every wordof every agreement and I still had a
conversation yesterday with some of thefolks in my class about, they asked if
I'm using generative AI and they askedif I'm training a model on my work.
And I was like, I mean, forme, certain things, but there
(14:08):
have been some hard line.
while we were talking about it, Iwas like, "Well, if I don't train
a model on my work, someone elsehas done it." So it's just like the
ethics and the environmental impact.
There's so much to it, but I also wentfrom being a pulled out, not going
to use it to now I really do see theutility in some parts of especially
(14:31):
OKR creation with a well-trainedmodel and a well-set up prompt.
Can I ask the questions for either of you?
Have you guys used it with your clients?
How did that show up?
How are you generate it?
Because I certainly have not today.
I have used it, and I don't knowthe number of times I have written
(14:52):
back to is that is not a KR, right?
Because it gives you backmilestones and tasks, right?
I started training my own also,because it's like, "No, that's not
an objective, that's a project." Itstill gives back a lot of that, but I
would love to hear how you guys haveactually used it in sessions or with
clients or organizations you work with.
(15:12):
I'm using it every day with clients now.
That's changed just sincereally like December.
But even as far back as October, manyof my clients have their own version.
If they have a large technical presencethey have their own version of AI, but
I'm finding, even myself, I'm usingClaude and ChatGPT more than I use Google.
(15:40):
And I see it in my sessions, where it'susually to your point where they get to
like, "Hey, I want it to be this," butinstead of going to a thesaurus, they go
to ChatGPT or some sort of AI tool andthey look for words, and it does help
with the creativity, but to your point,Maria, it still has to be vetted that
(16:01):
it's going to drive the result, right?
You still have to have somebody say,"Okay, it may be written accurately, but
is this really what you want to focus yourpeople's time and dollars on?" And then
that goes into the conversation of, isthis really our critical strategy path?
So yeah, I think it can be helpful.
It can also be distracting becausethen they get like five different
(16:21):
examples and then they are moreconfused on which one they like.
Yeah.
I've had clients, likeclients always want examples.
A marketing client wants, "Can youjust show me an example of marketing
OKRs?" And I'm like "No, I don't wantyou to look at those." It's too easy
to look at the example and say, "Okay,that looks good," and then adopt it as
(16:42):
opposed to doing the work of actuallythinking about what is most important
for your business and your timing.
So the way that I'm using generativeAI in my practice is I'm finding it's
helping me speed up my OKR workshops,especially things like objective forming.
Where my approach to objectiveforming is lightning fast.
(17:04):
We don't spend a lot of time deliberating.
We do a quick ideation.
What's important?
Why does it matter?
We put them together.
That's your objective But evenwith that, what I'm finding is
I can get clients to where theyhave concepts for their objective.
So I can get them to concepts and theninstead of having to take the time to
(17:24):
actually get it to a single statement inthe room, I can say, "If it's okay with
you, I'm going to take these concepts,feed them into a model, and give you
some options." So, my workshop efficiencyon objective creation has gone way up.
Once it spits out a coupleoptions, clients can make a
(17:45):
decision of what they want to keep.
takes that objective deliberationout of the workshop and lets us
do it in the final finishing.
And then what I always hope, and thisis why I'm training my own model, is
I hope that we can use these tools tohelp enable people's critical thinking
(18:06):
about creatively creating Key Results.
Thinking beyond the obvious KPIsthey have available, or thinking
beyond what they see in the examples.
Some of the approaches to Key ResultsI work with are pretty out there.
I'd love to be able to help enablepeople's creative thinking about
(18:27):
what Key Results could be beyond theexamples that most people usually see.
But I have the same thing, sometimes whenI'm preparing a training, I'm like, "I
just need an example set of OKRs." And soI'll type in, "Can you give me an example
set of OKRs for a software engineeringteam or for a marketing analytics team?"
(18:48):
And it spits it out, and I'm like,"No, now I have to train the model.
Now I have to teach you what an OKR is."I think in expert hands, the tools are
an incredible enabler, efficiency source.
I just worry about we already struggleenough with methodology understanding
and quality of methodology adoption.
(19:09):
And so I do worry about people puttingtoo much faith in the training of the
models if they don't the expertise.
So one thing that I have done, I'veused it more as an example, which is
to help identify leading indicators.
Because we, I think we all knowwhat the general kind of KPIs are
(19:32):
and the lagging indicators, becausethose are the metrics that we all
know, and maybe not love so much.
But it's the leading indicatorsthat you actually can actively
manage throughout the quarter.
I mean my experience both in my ownthinking as well as working with clients,
that's still the hardest thing to do.
Because that requires morethinking than what we typically
(19:52):
want to spend on stuff like that.
That's why we get milestones andkind of those KPIs that you can
measure twice in a quarter as KRs.
So I use ChatGPT primarily and I havegot it to actually give me pretty
good leading indicators that may notbe what organizations actually should
(20:12):
be managing, to your point, Natalie,just because it's there doesn't mean
that it's actually the right for you.
But I think you just seeing examplesof what those leading indicators
could be, that is a bit kind of outthere, like you said, Sara, right,
can actually help people think aboutit, what it is that they really should
be managing kind of day over day.
I am so glad you brought that upbecause I would agree, the hardest
(20:36):
part of OKR creation and methodologyadoption in my practice, is
leading indicator identification.
That's where I seepeople struggle the most.
So I don't think I've used it for that,but that's a really awesome insight that
continues to be one of the big barriers,even for those of us who do this every day
(20:57):
and have really finely honed approaches touse with clients, clients still struggle
with the leading indicator piece, partlybecause it also means instead of having
the whole quarter to make progress ontheir outcome, it's moving up their
accountability to a nearer time horizon.
So it increases the anxiety.
(21:18):
That's brilliant, Maria.
I think using those tools asa way to get ideas for leading
indicators is really good.
it is.
I agree, too.
And one other thing I've seen recentlyis a shift in accepting functional
team-level sets of OKRs versus,you know, like everybody gets a KR.
(21:42):
Like the Oprah, noteverybody should have a KR
not everybody gets a KR.
This is not like aparticipation trophy thing.
And I think making sure everybodyunderstands how they contribute
to this strategy, but don'thave to have their name on it.
It can be at the functional team level,and they should still know how they're
(22:04):
contributing to overall company strategy.
That's another shift that I've seen.
Is stripping out layers where we can.
So instead of everybody having specificObjectives and Key Results that are
cascaded, how we used to see themblown out, seven layers or levels,
functional teams hovering with likesub-KRs under the top level care
(22:29):
because they're spiky and fast and smartand moving quickly and startups and
they don't have time for the layers.
So that's one thing I'm noticingtoo, cause back in the day we
used to give everybody their ownindividual cares too, and they were
like duplicated everywhere with justnames on them and it, was too heavy.
And so I like that we're stripping outsome of those layers to make it spiky.
(22:53):
I'm really glad youbrought that up Natalie.
And Maria, I'm curious because weall work with kind of different types
of organizations, different sizes.
I'm also seeing what Natalie is, that thelocalization or cascading or connecting
OKRs looks really different now thanwhen I started working with OKRs.
(23:14):
But Maria, what are youseeing in your practice?
I think it's the same.
It has always been the biggest problem.
It's the easiest thing is for theleadership team to set OKRs, even
though of them still struggle withthat because it's like they have the
top-level metrics to choose between.
And that as you go down,it's harder and harder.
(23:36):
I know that we have all created thesedescriptions of what localization looks
like and it is so damn hard to describe itwithout getting all complicated about it.
And so not surprising, that's alsowhat organizations struggle with.
So finding middle ground, how to doit because OKR is still not about
the leadership team setting it.
(23:57):
It is about how people spend their timeactually doing and driving towards it that
happens further down in the organization.
So coming up with good ways for makingthat live, not to the leadership
team, not even a level down.
The third level, typically inlarger organizations, is where most
of that goodness happens or not.
(24:17):
And so, and creating them tobe aligned with each other.
Because if everybody just had their KRsor their OKRs and they're kind of wildly,
kind of not, in alignment, it's, it'snot going to do an awful lot of good
for the organization anyway, or solvingthe problem, which is the reason why
people implement OKRs in the first place.
(24:39):
And so I think it's still a strugglefor organizations to figure out how
to do that at a lower level and,and especially creating alignment.
I don't know about you guys, butI work a lot with organizations
that, have implemented OKRsalready and are not seeing the
value that they were hoping for.
And inevitably there's acouple of things I see.
One is you ask them, whydid you implement OKRs?
(25:03):
And they don't necessarily have agood answer to that other than, "We
want to be more clear a lot," likethey've read a book essentially, right?
But they don't have a why that is aproblem to solve that is relevant and
kind of resonates with the people in theorganization and they don't necessarily
have an intentional kind of structurearound the goal-setting process and the
(25:26):
alignment, how they actually going tohelp their teams get aligned and clear.
But it's more about theleadership team have set OKRs.
And so that means that threelevels on everyone's clear,
which we know isn't true.
We've got a great question in the commentsthat we'll come back to in just a sec.
So folks who are tuned in, if you havequestions at any time, send them through.
(25:48):
I can see them in two differentplaces, and we'll answer as many
as possible while we're live.
It always surprises mehow hard clients struggle.
I would say at this point, I'mprobably doing about maybe 30%
fresh-from-scratch implementations,and about 70 percent reboots, or
(26:08):
we're struggling and we need help.
A lot of the demand I see is.
for help with localizationto the individual.
Like they've gotten started orthey're adopting OKRs because they
want to localize to the individualor because they've read the
book that shows the six layers.
(26:30):
The first conversation I have tohave is that's just not how I do it.
Partly because of the amount oftime it takes, partly because of the
degradation of the, methodology qualityif we go too many layers, and then
partly I was working with a very large,very deep organization and had the
(26:52):
privilege of working with them quarterover quarter for a couple of years.
And so what I saw was they weredoing a cross-functional L1 at the
company level, and then a functionalL2 localization at the org level.
And as they did that, we had high-qualityOKRs at the company level and at
(27:14):
the functional level, we didn'tneed to localize anymore downward.
Like Natalie said, there were someKRs that would roll down from there,
but we didn't see any gain from doingfull localization at like L3, L4.
What we started to see instead wasthat teams could bottom-up from there.
(27:38):
So instead of the systemic, everybodyhas to go down, we'd have that downward
flow from L1, L2, and then at L3, L4for initiative teams, for individuals,
they could look up at L1 and L2 andget the direction that they needed,
either to create work plans and then dotheir delivery, or to create Objectives
(28:03):
and Key Results, or Objectives, KeyResults, and milestones, and work plans.
I still see some orgs do thedownward localization and cascading.
I see it in, control-based leadershipcultures, where it degrades down to
activity micromanagement really quickly.
(28:25):
And I also see it in organizationswhere the L1 leaders aren't creating
OKRs, they're creating something andcalling it OKRs, doesn't actually
fit the definition of OKRs.
Then L2 does their best tocompensate, and then L3, Maria,
you said the magic happens at L3.
(28:47):
that's where the happens at L3.
Because then L3 is like, "Well that's abunch of hooey. So what are we actually
gonna do?" And then they get it.
So, I screen out every once in awhile, I wind up working with one
of those, like, the magics at L3.
I struggle in that environment becausemy and my way just isn't compatible
(29:11):
with those kind of leaders who areOKRs for everyone else, not for me.
That just doesn't, it's nota culture fit to work with me
in that style, but I see it.
But more and more, it's just L1, L2,and then everyone else is bottom up.
So I think that's fine.
But As long as there is actually somekind of structured and formalized
(29:34):
process that says, "Okay, these are theinitiatives that we are working on."
This is how we're spending our timeand planning on spending our time."
Can we articulate how it actually iscontributing to the goals that we have
set or that the organization have set?
It's always scary, right, when people areworking on initiatives and they actually
(29:55):
do not have a clue, or are not veryclear on they would say it's important
or it, but they can't like clearlyarticulate how it is supporting the
strategic priorities of the organization.
And I mean, then the sad part ofit also is oftentimes they then
work on things that don't move theneedle on anything that matters.
I mean, they're done andthey work really hard.
(30:16):
And so it doesn't create purposeful work.
And so I still think, even if the full-onlocalization process that we have all
done in our careers isn't necessarilythe most effective way of doing it.
I still think that having a structureand a process where most teams can
articulate how the work that they aredoing contribute to strategic priorities
(30:38):
and the metrics, and know if they're doingthat or not, is still really important
for any kind of goal-setting processto result in something that matters.
I've spent most of my time with OKRsand strategy planning as the driver
of it internally in an organization.
I think about this differently than ifI am a coach or a consultant where I
don't have the same skin in the game interms of thinking about all the aspects
(31:03):
of execution, including managementpractices and readiness and capabilities
and integration with other stuff.
If you're overseeing all ofthat, you just think bigger.
And you think differently aboutthings than if you're coming in a
more narrow lane to set just thegoals and maybe trickle it down a bit.
I think the distinction I would makeis, it's not that we don't have that
(31:29):
clarity deeper in the organization.
For me, it's just aboutthe directionality.
In the conventional or olderstyle, we would localize
downward the whole way down.
I had one client where welocalized for an entire quarter.
And so what we're doing different nowis, instead of doing that sequential
team by team down the org, we'redoing L1, we're doing L2, and then
(31:54):
we're doing a localization cycle whereeveryone else does their bottoms-up.
So important initiatives create OKRs orwork plans, you know, if it just has
to get done, it's delivery planning.
If it has to yield anoutcome, they create OKRs.
The shift isn't that we're not usingOKRs elsewhere in the organization.
(32:16):
The shift is just on the timingand that everything below L2 or L3,
sometimes we go to L3, but everythingbelow that is in a big cloud.
It all happens at the same time,and then we can do a quick alignment
instead of taking all order todo the sequential localizing.
(32:36):
One thing I used to say, that Istill say to this day, is if we're
setting our OKRs up well, teamsshould be empowered to say no to
other things that get thrown at them.
I still firmly believe in thatbecause it is disheartening to folks,
especially that horsepower, you know,the L3s and fours and five levels,
that are just really crushing the work.
(32:57):
If they have two lists, if they havelike the work that leads up to OKRs
and then all the other stuff, andthey're just over capacity, stretched
too thin, and that's just not visible.
I call those misses, really,because we have to make sure
that they're not spread too thin.
I love working at thedetailed level with folks.
I love traversing L1s all the way to L7sand back again and catch those misses.
(33:21):
I think that's good stuff.
I like doing that.
So we've got a couple goodquestions I want to ask.
Stacey ask some execs expect to seethat even individuals have KRs, or
that everybody's work ties to a KR.
So this kind of gets at whatwe've all been talking about.
(33:41):
But sometimes that's not realistic.
So in the situations in yourpractice where everybody has a KR,
do you have any tactics you use?
How do you handle that when a client isfocused on that "everybody has a KR"?
It's interesting because everyone inthe company contributes to the strategy.
Honestly, even if it's facilities,keeping the facility safe and secure
(34:05):
for people to come and do work,they're contributing to the strategy.
So even though their name may not betied to a KR, it is tied to a body of
work that is showing that the operationis happening, that the lights are on,
doors are open, business is happening.
I like to involve everybody that wecan in those conversations, especially
(34:27):
when they're contributing to the toplevel, so they don't feel left out.
But also, the follow-up questionI get to this is, do you tie
compensation and performancemanagement to individuals with KRs?
Because then it feels weird, and it feelslike Big Brother, and it feels like you're
gonna see some sandbagging if people haveany compensation tied to their Key Results
(34:50):
and they're at the individual level.
So, it does get weird.
I like to hear the functional teamsand carve out that critical bodies
of work is the words I've been usingwith them, to make sure they know
how they contribute, but it's not aparticipation trophy kind of thing.
Not everybody is going tohave their name on a KR.
(35:10):
The logic that I try to use sometimes,more successfully than others, is the
whole concept of focus and prioritization.
So, one of the best leaders I've everhad the pleasure to working with used
to say, "It isn't prioritization unlessit hurts." And the fact of the matter
is, if everybody has a KR, that isnever anyone's definition of focus.
(35:33):
Because then the organization endsup with how many KRs that they're
supposed to be driving towards, right?
And so, it's more around being ableto articulate how the way I'm spending
my time and the decisions that Imake are contributing to those.
I am perfectly fine with saying, "Whichof these KRs do you contribute to?"
It doesn't mean that you own them,that you are the only one who's owning
(35:57):
that, because that's the other concept.
Very few things important in anorganization is done by one person.
Because if it is, it's probablynot all that strategic.
And so it's all about the peopleworking together to make it happen.
So I'm perfectly fine with havinglists that says, "This KR, who are
the people that are the most importantcontributors to that based on the daily
(36:19):
work that they do?" Or even the teams?
Yeah, this kind of dovetails intoanother question we got from Elena.
Understanding that OKRs are nota project management tool, how do
you integrate them without losingthe scope that each should have?
My answer to both questions is connected.
One of the first education steps I dowith clients is that there is a difference
(36:43):
between what just has to get done.
And if getting it done is success,in my model falls under delivery.
That gets projectmanaged, it gets planned.
There might be some KR 'sidentified for change initiatives,
for improving something.
But there's a lot that just hasto get done in our organizations.
(37:07):
And the old language of OKRs, that weneed an OKR for what's most important
in the business, doesn't apply.
Paying the electric bill, andgetting payroll out on time, those
fundamentals that just have toget done are as important as any
innovation initiative we have.
So that's one of our very firsteducation points: If it just has to
(37:31):
get done, it doesn't need an OKR.
And if you don't have OKRs for delivery,for if it just has to get done.
And then, if just getting it done isn'tsuccess, that's where OKRs come in, where
we need to aim for an outcome, or somekind of impact, or success criteria.
(37:51):
Even with that breakdown, it's still hardfor clients to wrap their heads around.
But I find when I start with a new orgwith that model that hasn't implemented
OKRs, and we can get ahead of the what'simportant goes in the OKRs, so everyone
feels like they have to be visible inthe OKRs, it's working pretty well.
(38:11):
People get recognized throughdelivery and project management for
the stuff that just has to get done.
And we have smaller sets of OKRsbecause we can really zero in on
what does this just have to getdone, if so, give it a milestone.
if we have to achieve some sort ofsuccess criteria, then what is it?
So, Elena, that's for me.
(38:32):
kind of the split that we can projectmanage what we do and what we plan
and what has to get done, then wecan use our stretch thinking and
our more expansive thinking aroundwhat's possible on that OKR side.
So, Natalie, you said you hada project management example.
Oh yeah.
So, I think it's important if you have alot of milestones that you're trying to
(38:56):
get accomplished through a project plan.
Whatever project tool you have, theway I like to show that is say, the
KR is deliver all 100 milestones forProject Rocket Ship by the end of Q1,
instead of listing out the milestones.
Yeah.
The body of work.
So then, they can manage the milestones,and a big number that they're
tracking, and it's also leading.
(39:17):
that's one way, but then the milestonesare tracked in another tool or a
robust OKR tool that does tasks,actions, and milestones beneath the KR.
That's really cool.
Because then it also gives the visibility
Yeah, the approach is, I thinkthat the fact that we call it
OKR is part of the problem.
Because it's actually not just OKRs, it'salso the, work that comes after that.
(39:40):
So if it's OKR-Aactions, or I-initiatives.
And so I think if you stop the planningon we the KRs without them saying,
"Okay, what work is actually going todrive us there?" I think that's one
reason why these problems occur, becauseyou have project planning over here
and you have OKR planning over here,and they're not clearly connected.
(40:04):
I think that connectingthe two is important.
Quite honestly, If you identify the KRsthat are milestones or activities and
you go, "Okay, so out of, let's say 15KRs, 12 of them are actually activities,
and milestones, and actions," then youknow that that's not strategic drive.
(40:28):
And they'll say, "Are any of thesethings in a platform or on a plan
somewhere else, then why are you doingKR then?" You're duplicating work.
And the fact is, that I would say thatis one of the main reasons why teams,
especially further down in the org,don't like OKRs, because they feel
like, "Why are we doing this? We'reduplicating things that we already do in
(40:49):
some other platform." And they're right.
I think it's part of the educationalthing that we can help to highlight
initiative, but the current KRs,and how much they are projects and
that actually manage somewhere else.
I have templates when identifying KRsthat also includes a box for "What's
the work that's going to drive it?"And that could be existing initiatives
(41:11):
and projects or new things that weneed to do, so that you help people see
"turtles all the way down," as they say.
I love that.
Turtles all the way down is awesome.
Okay, fantastic.
Now I have a million questions, andwe have, 11 minutes if I'm doing
my math right, so we're going tohave to do this like quarterly.
So, the two things that I want tomake sure we get to first is the other
(41:34):
question I get every time a clientcalls, which is: How do we connect
OKRs to performance management?
What would you two saywhen you get that question?
How do you respond?
Well, I can say it alwaysmakes me a little nervous to
understand their "why" about that.
Is it because you want to reallydrive operational efficiencies
(41:58):
or process re-engineering?
Like, what is it that you want to drive?
If they think people are not workinghard enough, I struggle with that.
It's tough for me because you run intoall kinds of nuances around, how do you
measure one person compared to another,and then do you compensate on that?
And then It gets really weird with money.
And so, I say at the functionalteam level, you're absolutely
(42:20):
going to look at how that team hasperformed against their Key Results.
And did they meet their goals?
Were there wins?
What could they do differently?
And would you factor thatin a performance evaluation?
Absolutely.
But would you also factorlike 15 other things?
Yes.
Are they a good leader?
Do they learn well?
Do they apply themselves?
You know, how are theyshowing up each day?
And so there's lots of other factors.
(42:42):
I would say the bodies of workthat they complete are one of the
elements in performance evaluation,but OKRs are not for performance.
So, the other point that I make iswith OKRs, I at least try to say, "You
shouldn't just focus on setting OKRsaround things you have control over."
(43:02):
No team or individual has control overan awful lot of stuff that's strategic.
You might be able to influenceit, highly influence it.
And if you can't influence it, then havinga KR around it isn't particularly useful.
I think performance management orgoal setting is the complete opposite.
You have to set goals for people thatthey actually have control over or more
(43:26):
influence than things you set around KRs.
And so if you try to marry thetwo, you end up either with
KRs that aren't necessarilystrategic or broad enough, right?
Because you're going to say, "Oneperson can do it," or you're going
to end up with KRs that no personactually can, you know, influence.
And it's unfair to have thembe accountable for that.
(43:48):
And then you're going to haveother problems to solve, right?
With people being held accountablefor things that just aren't possible.
And so I think it comes down toconversations between a manager and
their direct report to say, okay, this iswhat we need to accomplish this quarter
or half-year or whatever cycle theyuse for doing this and say, what is it
(44:08):
reasonable that you will do or contributeor accomplish in this period of time?
And to your point, Natalie, both interms of the outcome that they do,
but also how they do their work route,which is a key thing with performance
management, including what are the newthings, skills, and the new things you
want to get better at, which also iscompletely unrelated to some KRs because
(44:32):
it's part of how you do your work.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I wrote an enormous chapter for the bookon why I'm in the we don't connect OKRs.
We don't connect attainment of OKRsto performance management or incentive
pay because — and we had to pull itout and I'm sharing it as a blog post
(44:53):
because it was like, it was the longestbook chapter in the history of OKRs.
but I think you twocovered it really well.
There is a perspectiveeven among OKR experts.
There is a group I, there'sa position paper out there.
If I can find it afterward, I'll add tothe comments, by one of the trade orgs
(45:16):
where, you know, when everybody startedworking together on it the assumption
was that the industry would say wedon't connect OKRs to performance.
In the creation of that positionpaper, at least the last time
I saw it, there were two camps.
There Is a camp that says, here's how youdo it, and then there's the rest of us
who's like, for me, when clients say theywant to do that, I say, okay, let me tell
(45:40):
you a couple stories about what I've seen.
Is this what you want system to look like?
You know, where people who areambitious and set stretch goals,
get penalized terms of incentive paycompared to people who set conservative
goals and fully achieve them.
(46:01):
you know, so there are a couple scenarioswhere I can say, here's what happens when
you connect attainment to incentives.
This is what happens.
This isn't, you know, afable, like it's what happens.
If you look at the system design of it,here's the system you're setting up.
(46:23):
Is that what you want?
but, uh, but we have, you know,we've developed scheme that factors
OKR contribution into performanceevaluation, but not attainment.
we never ever link it to attainment.
(46:43):
Uh, I think, I think the problem,right, is that, you know, when we say
it shouldn't be connected, people thinkthat the work that people do shouldn't
be actually connected to KRs, whichis obviously not what we're saying.
It's just that it shouldn'tbe a one to one, right?
That you own the KR.
And if that's not achieved, thatmeans that you, your performance
weren't good or wasn't good.
So let's do a speed round.
(47:04):
Cause we're almost out of time andwe've got one other great question.
What is the very first step andunfortunately, it just shows
me linkedin user for this one.
So I can't say who's asking the question.
But what is the very first step foran organization to implement OKRs?
Ooh, I would, I would say have astrategic roadmap in mind, at least an
(47:25):
idea of the critical bodies of work.
Yeah.
So, mine is know your why.
What problems are OKR supposed to solve.
Because if you are not clear onthe why, and the why now, in a
way that resonates with people,they're not going to be successful.
And not because people arebad, but people are busy.
And it requires a new way of thinkingand in order for people to take the
(47:46):
time and energy to do that, therehas to be a compelling reason and
benefit to them to do it just forthemselves as well as the organization.
You guys made it hard for me to thinkof one, because you gave the two best
answers, but, I'll give a spicy answer.
.First step I would say is to lookbeyond the paid search results
(48:07):
from OKR software platforms.
To learn about what'shappening in OKRs today.
Because organizations would dothemselves well to start with a strong
methodology focus, and then figure outwhat tool they need and it's like we
can create tools successfulness if weget methodology established well and
(48:29):
get participation high with methodology.
But so much of everything is dominatedby information from platforms.
I would recommend folks find meon YouTube, or Ben Lamorte, you
know, there are like methodology
Every time we talk to each other I'msurprised at how much we agree on.
(48:52):
And how much we agree on is different fromwhat was in some of the original books,
or some of what we hear from platforms.
So that would be my first step.
All right.
there's another couple really goodother angles to that question,
but we've got a hard stop.
So, LinkedIn user, the rest ofyour questions, I'll make sure
(49:13):
we get an answer to you, eitherin the comments or in follow up.
You two, I want to thank you so much.
This exceeded my hopesand dreams so much.
I knew we were gonna have fun,but this was just fantastic.
So, Natalie, can people find youif they want more information?
I'm on LinkedIn.
Of course.
I work with all the, you know, the,pool of OKR experts is fairly small
(49:36):
who have been in this over eight years.
Uh, of course I work with Ben, OKRs.
I I'm on LinkedIn.
You can find me, I think NatalieWebb and maybe put in, Colorado or
Wyoming, because I think there's a few.
Natalie Webb, find Natalie on LinkedInand then Maria, where can folks find you?
Same thing with me.
LinkedIn is probably the easiestway to find me as well, as long as
(49:58):
you spell my last name correctly,
Yeah, I'm in that boat too.
Awesome.
And then I'm Sara Lobkovich.
You can find me at, findrc.co orat my book website of You Are A
Strategist, yeah, coming soon.
Um, youareastrategist.com.
So you two, thank you so much.
(50:20):
Let's do it again!
Yay!
All right, friends, That's it for today.
stay in the loop with everythinggoing on around here by
visiting findrc.co/newsletterand joining my mailing list.
(50:43):
Got questions?
My email addresses are too hard tospell, so visit findrc.co/contact
and shoot me a note that way.
You'll also find me at@saralobkovich on most of your
favorite social media platforms.
For today's show notes,visit findrc.co/thinkydoers.
(51:03):
If there's someone you'd like featuredon this podcast, drop me a note.
And if you know other Thinkydoers who'dbenefit from this episode, please share.
Your referrals, your word of mouth,and your reviews are much appreciated.
I'm looking forward to the questionsthis episode sparks for you, and I
look forward to seeing you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com