All posts in this category
🧭 Planning & Goals5 min read2026-05-17

OKR Anti-Patterns We Stopped Doing

Five things we used to do with OKRs that made them worse. If you're seeing any of these, it's not the framework — it's the practice.

Most OKR pain isn't the framework. It's the way the framework gets used.

Anti-pattern 1: OKRs that score themselves

If your KR is 'ship the new pricing page', it scores 1.0 the moment you ship — independent of whether pricing improved anything. The KR should be about the *outcome*, not the *output*. Better: 'increase trial-to-paid conversion by 15%'.

Anti-pattern 2: Too many objectives

Five objectives means at least one is fake. Three is the sweet spot. Four is the maximum. Demote real-but-not-strategic work to projects without OKR coverage.

Three objectives, each with 2-3 KRs that measure outcomes — not whether something shipped.
Three objectives, each with 2-3 KRs that measure outcomes — not whether something shipped.

Anti-pattern 3: Setting once, never revisiting

OKR's value is in the cadence. Set them in January, score them in March, and you've used 5% of what they offer. The 14-day check-in is where the actual work happens.

Anti-pattern 4: Mid-quarter changes by stealth

Changing a KR mid-quarter is sometimes right. Changing it without an explicit announcement is never right. If you do it, write a note in the OKRs page with the reason — and tag the original target. Future you (and your team) will thank you.

Anti-pattern 5: Punishing low scores

OKRs work because people set ambitious targets — knowing they'll land at 0.7, not 1.0. Punish the 0.6 outcomes and you'll get 1.0 KRs that were really easy. Then you've lost the framework.

An ambitious 0.6 is more valuable than a guaranteed 1.0.
See the demo's Q2 Goals page for what good OKRs look like in practice.

Related posts