Imagine driving a car without knowing the difference between the accelerator and the brake. You might press something, the car might move—but are you in control? Are you heading in the right direction? Or are you just hurtling forward, mistaking movement for progress?
This is precisely the mistake many companies make when managing OKRs. They celebrate output—features shipped, story points completed, hours logged—as if these were achievements in themselves. But just as speed alone doesn’t determine whether you reach your destination safely, output alone tells you nothing about whether you’ve actually created value.
The OKR Deception: Activity ≠ Success
Too many organizations define OKRs as lists of activities—projects to complete, features to launch, deadlines to meet. This is not an OKR; it’s a task list.
- A false OKR: “Complete the redesign of the user dashboard by Q2.”
- A real OKR: “Increase user engagement with the dashboard by 30%.”
The difference? The first measures effort; the second measures impact. The first ensures engineers are busy. The second ensures they are effective.
Outputs vs. Outcomes: The Engineer’s Dilemma
Think about how we measure engineering teams. If we judge them by the number of commits, lines of code, or tickets closed, we incentivize shipping for the sake of shipping. That’s how you end up with bloated products, unnecessary complexity, and teams that optimize for vanity metrics instead of real value.
Great engineering teams, however, measure themselves by what their software enables:
✅ Did it make users more productive?
✅ Did it increase revenue or reduce costs?
✅ Did it solve a real problem more efficiently?
If the answer is no, then no matter how much code was written, the team failed.
Real-World OKR Failures: Where It Falls Apart
The “Ship It and Forget It” Trap
A company invests months in building a new AI-powered recommendation system. Engineers celebrate the launch. The OKR? “Deploy AI recommendations by Q3.”
What no one realizes:
- Users ignore the recommendations because they’re irrelevant.
- The system slows down checkout times.
- The business impact? Negative.
The OKR should have been: “Increase conversion rates through relevant recommendations.” But because the focus was on output (launching the AI system) instead of outcome (improving conversion), the entire initiative failed.
The “Process Over Purpose” Fallacy
A leadership team decides to roll out Agile across the company. Their OKR? “Conduct 20 Agile training sessions this year.”
What happens?
- People attend, check a box, then return to their old habits.
- There is no measurable improvement in agility.
- Leadership declares success anyway—because they measured activity, not impact.
A real OKR would be: “Reduce cycle time by 30% through improved Agile practices.”
Who Benefits from Bad OKRs?
Let’s be blunt: Bad OKRs benefit executives who want the illusion of progress without accountability for results. They provide plausible deniability—a way to say, “But we did what we said we would!” even if nothing actually changed.
Good OKRs, however, force uncomfortable conversations:
- If an outcome isn’t being met, why?
- Did we set the wrong target?
- Are we measuring the right thing?
- Do we even understand what success looks like?
Flipping the Script: The OKR Driving Test
Let’s return to our driving analogy. You don’t need to be a mechanic to drive a car, but you do need to understand how to navigate safely.
OKRs work the same way:
- The road rules → Knowing the difference between output and outcome.
- The steering wheel → Adjusting strategy based on real-world conditions.
- The destination → Clear business impact, not just movement.
When companies focus on outcomes over outputs, they stop rewarding busyness and start rewarding real progress. That’s when OKRs become a GPS for value creation, not just a bureaucratic exercise in checking boxes.
If your OKRs aren’t guiding you toward impact, it’s time to stop driving blind. 🚗