Improve Efficiency and Alignment In Your OKRs: The Lead-Follow Approach
An theoretical alternative approach to OKR setting within a multi-team environment.
Let’s start with the admission that I’m a big fan of OKRs for driving impact in a team or organization. The simplicity of the concept and the introspection it forces on defining outcomes instead of outputs is incredibly powerful. I also have to admit I’ve only worked with the framework for about two years. However, in that short time I have immersed myself in the topic. I have participated in numerous internal organizational coaching workshops, read dozens of articles, read the big books, watched hours of videos, worked with various consultants, authored an article for Nonprofit Pro, co-presented at industry conferences, and have even been a guest on the RebootIT podcast all focused on this one topic.
One thing that has struck me in my experience working with the framework is that true OKR alignment is elusive. In my journey, I have observed teams often searching for opportunities to align with organizational OKRs or with other OKRs set by sibling teams but often the sheer magnitude of the effort of OKR crafting process leaves teams with OKRs that could have used a little more time in the oven.
For those of you that have landed on this post and are totally lost on what OKRs are, I’ll leave some selected resources for you at the end of the post to help you get to speed.
To Lead You Must Follow
So how do we solve for this problem of teams crafting OKRs that fall short of their full potential for alignment? And can we find a way to increase the efficiency and precision of the process?
My proposal, which as of the time of this post, is entirely theoretical is the “Lead-Follow OKR” approach or “LF-style” for short. As with any theory, it comes with a few assumptions that help us frame its intended application.
First, it assumes you are working in a multi-team environment. Second, it assumes there is at least a single overarching OKR the teams are targeting for alignment. In this case it doesn’t matter if it’s an annual OKR or a quarterly OKR just that there be at least one common OKR. Third, it assumes you are using an “Objective, Key Result, Initiative” style to OKRs. Specifically, you are writing an Objective, related outcome Key Results, and the related output Initiatives likely to affect the Key Results. In this style, there are nearly zero output Key Results because any outputs are written as Initiatives. Finally, it assumes that the teams are complimentary to each other or at least that the teams can collaborate on initiatives in some way. This collaboration could manifest in setting Key Results under one Objective or simply enumerating initiatives to be undertaken.
The Approach
At the start of a new OKR planning cycle, teams are broken into two groups: the Lead Group and the Follow Group. The naming convention is secondary. The important concept is that in the LF style, the teams in the Lead group initiate their OKR planning first. Their collective goal is to craft OKRs that align to the overarching organizational OKRs. Taking enough time to really seek deep alignment.
Once the Lead group is done, the teams in the Follow group begin. These teams have the opportunity to inspect the OKRs set by the Lead group. The Follow teams can “slot-in” to the Lead group OKRs as either Key Results or Initiatives within those OKRs.
I also propose two additional rules:
The Lead Group may only set OKRs that align to top-level organizational OKRs. Internal team or function centric OKRs aren’t considered by these teams.
The Follow group may set team or function centric OKRs but only after reviewing the Lead group OKRs and exhausting any opportunities for contributing to those OKRs first.
On the next OKR setting session, the cycle of Lead-Follow would reverse and the Follow group would become the Lead group.
Bonus Variation
At a predefined interval, the teams can be regrouped so that new combinations of OKRs can emerge.
Benefits
My intent with this approach was to improve alignment, efficiency, and precision in the OKR setting process. By distributing the responsibility of finding opportunities for alignment, it may yield OKRs that are more tightly coupled and aligned than having all teams seeking their own version of alignment. Likewise, by having one set of teams set the tone of that alignment, it lets other teams use those preestablished links as guidance on what Key Results and Initiatives to focus on during the upcoming session.
The approach may also improve team collaboration. It forces the Follow teams to look deeply at the Objectives being set by the Lead teams. This could drive better mutual understanding of what’s important and how each teams’ collective skills apply to that work.
If after both groups of teams develop and review the OKRs they are not fully developed, this could be used as a sign that the work isn’t important enough in the given moment. So it adds a filter for excluding unimportant work that won’t contribute to the organizational OKRs.
Hurdles
Certainly given this idea is just a theory, there are likely to be numerous hurdles in its implementation. Here are a few of them to consider:
By splitting teams into two OKR setting groups, we will add more time to the overall OKR setting cycle. With schedules being tight, this may be hard to sell in an organization.
Because teams are split randomly, the technique may dilute the ability for teams with the tightest proximity to organizational OKRs to align to them. Not randomizing the split of the teams may solve for this but it would require another set of rules or considerations. In the search for more efficiency, this may not be desirable.
If Lead group teams are unable to develop aligned OKRs, they would be left without any OKRs for the session. Giving those teams the ability to fall back to internal OKRs may solve for this but at the expense of working on the outcomes that align best.
If Lead group teams aren’t able to develop enough aligned OKRs, it leaves the Follow teams very shallow options to deliver direct value to the organizational OKRs.
Conversely, if Follow group teams aren’t able to contribute meaningfully to Lead OKRs, the resulting OKRs may be empty in their relevant Key Results and Initiatives. Presumably, these OKRs would be discarded as not being important enough for the session.
Conclusions
It’s intriguing to consider some new ideas on implementing OKRs. While this is just a theory at this point, the critical factor is that something about my personal experience in OKR setting has led to thinking about new solutions for better alignment. In a perfect world, we’d be able to measure "alignment” as a Key Result. How would increasing “alignment” be measured? That’s a question for a different post. But for now, what’s your experience in OKR setting, in driving alignment, and in helping teams find the capacity needed to set OKRs effectively?