“What is your core message?”
Perhaps surprisingly “this”what is your core message?” is one of the tougher question I’ve been asked lately. My problem is, while know the value of focus and regularly preach it focus I can be weak myself. So, this question has me thinking of several possible answers.
Those answers are connected but I’d have to spend time enumerating my philosophy. And actually, the best explanation of that philosophy is the books I’ve written over the years starting with Changing Software Development.
Fortunately, my inquisitor was asking specifically about Succeeding with OKRs in Agile so the full question was really “What is your core message of your OKR book?” which makes it a bit easier.
(By the way, the Italian translation of Succeeding with OKRs in Agile has just been released.)
Succeeding started life as a brain dump to myself of what worked, and what didn’t work, when using OKRs in agile teams. It wasn’t intended to have a core message, it was more “here is bunch of things to help with OKRs.”
Still, there is reoccurring, core, message: OKRs are mechanism for agreeing shared goals, communicating goals and driving action, to work everyone on the team should be included and everyone is responsible.
Let me expand on that…
When something (opportunity, challenge, problem, whatever) is big enough to need more than one person then it is a very good idea indeed if those people can agree on a shared goal (objective, target, aim, desired outcome). Unfortunately, giving people goals is a really poor way of goal setting for a variety of reasons.
The days when one person could give orders down the hierarchy are gone. That may have worked in 1914 but society is less accepting of that approach today. Not only that but modern companies and systems are too complex for a big brain approach to work.
Perhaps the biggest reason is that a big brain approach fails is because simply giving people work to do fails to harness their motivation, talents and abilities of the people doing the work.
Commitment – and therefore motivation – will be highest when those doing the work have had a voice in forming the goal. Co-creating goals shares and enrols people. This brings all to the table and harnesses their brainpower. In doing so there is a place for diversity and dissenting opinion. Different views and different approaches creates more opportunities.
Driving working from goals is superior to working from plans because goals are more stable, plans are frequently derailed. You can, and should, keep coming back to goals. Plans are just a means an end, plans are created as needed to advance on the goal.
In this context OKRs are a mechanism for agreeing share goals, communicating goals and driving action to deliver goals.
Now that is the core message, but alongside it is some caution. Unlike some OKR proponents I recognise problems. Not fatal problems, but things to be careful with.
Goals can mislead. By their very nature they simplify and abstract so you need compensating mechanisms. So revisit goals regularly – the OKR framework defaults to every 3 months. This provides opportunities to refine goals and renew enrolment.
Simpler short term goals are great for motivation and focusing work but they miss the broader view. Broad long-term goals can be too abstract for people to associate with or to drive work. So these need to be used in tandem.
Smaller and short term goals need to be nested inside broader, longer term, goals and ultimately our personal and organisational purpose. However, goals is not a sure fire win.
Problems arise when goals conflict: The sooner this is identified the more options there will be for reconciling those conflicts.
While single minded goals are great at focusing teams for action they risk destabilising the wider system, e.g. near term cost reduction can undermine resilience, succession planning and innovation. So you need to regularly take a step back and think more broadly.
Back to core message: In the days of the big brain mastermind they (CxO, consultant, central planner) was expected to do the broad thinking while lesser minds would consider action. Rather than separate by role I suggest they are separated in time: everybody shares responsibility, while they spend most of their time delivering they surface every few months and think broadly. Its more egalitarian.
This doesn’t take any longer because the big brain doesn’t need to spend time explaining their great ideas to everyone else and then policing compliance. And since everyone is involved with setting understanding and motivation are higher so the chances of meeting the goal are higher.