Now that OKRs are a checkbox item in many digital transformation efforts, I wanted to share some observations from working with customers/future customers at @Amplitude_HQ
1/n: You can't OKR your way into a strategy. OKRs aren't a strategy. They "deploy" a strategy
2/n
You can't OKR your way into contextual awareness.
OKRs are a time-bound goal setting framework. Not a framework for surfacing assumptions, beliefs, hypotheses, etc.
They are an *output* of those things. Not an input.
3/n
It is very important to distinguish between "persistent models" and time-based goals. They are complimentary, however. One creates the foundation for the other.
So many teams are tacking OKRs on to roadmap items, vs. *starting* with a sense of what is important.
4/n
Here is a graceful example of an OKR that spans context and Bet.
This team wants to capture key goals in an onboarding workflow.
Note how one of the Rs refers to the Bet. Another R relates to Project Matching Success Rate which is stable/persistent.
5/n
Say this team wants to improve Activated Accounts (AAs) and focus on Onboarding Efficacy (OE).
They dream up a Bet to surface charts during onboarding.
The OKR can be:
* movement in AAs
* movement in OE
* Bet specific metrics (Chart Interactions)
6/n
Starting with OKRs is a bit like working backwards into practices and good habits. I mean it can work. People figure things out. But they also risk stalling.
Another approach is to work forwards with The Basics
Each team should have a
* mission
* some sense of a persistent model
* some core dashboards that cover that model
* a roadmap of bets (ideally not PRDs)
And dedicated time to REVIEW what's happening.
9/n
It's important to keep in mind what OKRs are for ... and not for.
They are FOR:
Alignment
Focused ambition
Shared understanding
Collective commitment
Learning & reflection
Not FOR:
Perf. management
Individual commitment
Bolted on to projects
Avoiding communication
when a leader talks about a "lack of ownership" or "too much consensus", I immediately focus on dependencies.
there are 1) hard dependencies 2) mushy dependencies
people see the hard ones, but not the mushy ones.
here's why it matters 1/n 🧵
Imagine you have a leader who pops their head up once and a while to provide "context".
...and a team that "can't be decisive"
What looks like a "lack of ownership" from the outside, is a persistent fear of the leader popping up. Of not having context.
Mushy Dependency
2/n
Or say that you technically "own" something, but there are a tons of people you need to "check in" with. Technically, they are not in your way. But you generally to keep them informed and are expected to "influence" them.
Some tips for giving INCLUSIVE career advice on Twitter. I fail often at these.
1/n: Assume that ppl have had "pop" management, leadership, and self-help advice/memes imposed on them from an early age. One person's casual, truthy, wisdom, is another person's trigger.
2/n: Don't assume that the power dynamics you have enjoyed, are the same power dynamics that other people have enjoyed.
Similarly, don't assume that your struggles necessarily make you a great arbiter of other people's struggles.
3/n: Leave "tough love" and "I hate to break it to you" advice for 1:1 high safety discussions. Twitter is not the place for one person to dispense their "tough love" on people they don't know.
Imagine if you walked up to a stranger in an airport and dispensed tough love...
I facilitated a discussion on "don't bring me problems, bring me solutions" today, and it was so amazingly interesting.
Some paraphrased quotes:
"I've never had the luxury to bring problems. What is it like?"
1/n
"Ultimately, if you want to get ahead, you are going to need to bring solutions. There's no other way"
"There is complaining, and then there is trying to get a conversation going. People think I'm complaining. But I'm not. Can I get better at that?"
2/n
"I've never liked presupposing that my solution was right. I'm kind of jealous of people who can do that. Is it confidence? How did they get so confident?"
"As a kid, I was told not to whine and create a fuss. I felt invisible. So for me, both are hard."
3/n
For years the phrase "we just need the right people in the right roles" has annoyed me to no end.
I've reflected a bit on why. Here goes...
1/n - It tends to accompany extreme overconfidence in the ability to judge the "right" person (and "right" role).
2/n - It tends to ignore implicit biases, and systemic discrimination.
"Right" = "someone I can identify as right".
"Someone I can identify as right" = "Someone who matches my pre-programmed perception of what is good/effective".
3/n - If environments work when they have all the right people in all the right roles...then it de-facto means that when something is broken, we can blame someone. It seeks a single root cause.
Things are rarely that clear cut (as much as some ppl want the opposite to be true)