Here's an anti-pattern to watch for: Hiring a process, tool, framework, or label to do too many jobs. An example. A team starts using OKRs. You ask them "why have you decided to use OKRs?" They explain. Well, the OKRs will help us set goals. Oh, and they will help us track our progress! Accountability, right? And alignment of course, and keeping score. Objective grading is part of it. And autonomy when a team sets good ones.
Having a tool that can help support certain jobs—or declaring that it ought to be used for them—is so easily conflated for being equipped to make real progress there. Hiring that tool without a shared baseline on its and purpose and our practices is a great recipe for divergence. And it seems that OKRs are an especially pernicious shape-shifter without rigor-in-use and clear boundaries on their purposes.
Great post again John. The fear though is that simply more tools will be created to distribute these jobs. So instead of a few clear OKRs where teams focus on, we might see more OKRs for teams to be committed towards org's desires to get more "bang for buck".
Having a tool that can help support certain jobs—or declaring that it ought to be used for them—is so easily conflated for being equipped to make real progress there. Hiring that tool without a shared baseline on its and purpose and our practices is a great recipe for divergence. And it seems that OKRs are an especially pernicious shape-shifter without rigor-in-use and clear boundaries on their purposes.
Great post again John. The fear though is that simply more tools will be created to distribute these jobs. So instead of a few clear OKRs where teams focus on, we might see more OKRs for teams to be committed towards org's desires to get more "bang for buck".