Most leaders assume that a successful OKRs rollout means everyone sets OKRs, from the executive team down to individual contributors. In practice, that assumption is one of the most common reasons OKRs implementations fail. A successful OKRs rollout is not just about writing goals. It’s about ordering, structuring, and scaling them in the right sequence so they drive alignment instead of overhead.
It is also worth noting upfront that individual level OKRs, once one of the most requested parts of any OKRs rollout, have fallen significantly out of favor since 2022. Organizations that mandated them began walking the practice back after finding they added overhead without adding value.
We will come back to that, but first let us talk about where to actually start.
After coaching hundreds of organizations through OKRs implementations, from small and mid-sized companies to Global 1000 enterprises, the pattern is consistent: organizations that try to deploy OKRs everywhere at once tend to create compliance theater rather than real alignment. The ones that succeed are deliberate about where they start, and patient about where they expand. They nail it before they scale it.
Here is what that looks like in practice.
OKRs Rollout: Start at the Right Level
The right starting point for most organizations is a set of top level OKRs that create context for everything below them. Before teams can connect their work to company priorities, those priorities need to be clearly defined.
That said, company level does not always mean the CEO and the full executive team. In large, complex organizations with dozens of business units, mature strategic planning processes already in place, or hundreds of products, starting at the very top can actually be redundant or politically difficult.
Several of our clients in large enterprises have defined their top level as a major business unit, the office of the CIO, or even a single product division. What matters is that someone sets OKRs at a level high enough to give lower level teams meaningful direction.
The principle is simple: top level OKRs create the context that makes team level OKRs coherent. Without that context, teams end up optimizing in isolation.
OKRs Rollouts: Why So Many Break at the Team Level
Once you have top-level OKRs in place, the next question is which teams should set OKRs, and this is where most implementations go wrong.
The intuitive answer is to use your org chart. Load the reporting structure into a spreadsheet or software tool, assign each functional team their own OKRs, and you have a scalable system.
The problem is that it usually does not work.
We have been approached by dozens of organizations for coaching after their org chart approach failed. The most common complaint: rather than creating alignment, functional team OKRs reinforced silos.
When product has its OKRs and engineering has its OKRs and neither team is accountable for what happens in between, you have not created alignment. You have just added overhead to your existing organizational structure.
There are three approaches we have seen succeed, and they are not mutually exclusive.
Three Team Structures That Actually Work
Merge Teams With Shared Outcomes
In one engagement with a mid-sized tech company, an engineering manager asked whether product and engineering should each define their own OKRs. We started down that path, and within minutes it was obvious that nearly every key result the product team wanted to own was dependent on engineering.
Rather than pretend those dependencies did not exist, we merged the two teams into a single cross-functional OKRs unit called ProdEng and assigned a champion and co-champion from each side for each key result. Alignment improved almost immediately.
The same logic often applies to sales and marketing, IT and finance, or any other pairing of teams that cannot succeed without each other.
Build Cross Functional OKRs Squads
One of our clients, a leading online classifieds company in Canada, abandoned functional team OKRs entirely. Instead of organizing OKRs around their org chart, they organized around customer segments: Buyer Squad, Seller Squad, Auto Squad, Advertiser Squad.
Each squad pulled from product, engineering, marketing, and wherever else was needed, and each owned OKRs connected to a specific customer group. The result was an OKRs program that reflected the company’s actual priorities rather than its administrative structure.
We are seeing this model adopted more widely, particularly in technology companies organized around product squads.
Let Your OKRs Reveal Organizational Gaps
Sometimes the right team does not exist yet.
In one engagement, after facilitating a leadership workshop, we helped a client develop a top level objective focused on organic growth. The CFO pointed out that organic growth was critical to their five year financial model but no single team owned it.
Rather than distributing responsibility across functional teams and hoping for the best, the company created a new cross functional team specifically charged with that objective.
The OKRs process surfaced an organizational gap and gave leadership the clarity to close it.
OKRs Rollout Strategy: Set Individual OKRs?
For years, individual level OKRs were one of the most requested parts of any OKRs rollout. Leaders wanted every employee to have their own objectives, and software vendors were happy to sell that vision.
After 2022, that demand dropped noticeably. Organizations that had mandated individual OKRs began walking the practice back after concluding they added overhead without adding value. The enthusiasm had not delivered the results people expected. That experience matches what we saw in the field.
When organizations mandate individual OKRs, two things tend to happen. Individuals, understandably worried that their OKRs will be used to evaluate their performance, set conservative targets they know they can hit, and stretch goals disappear.
Employees also end up focusing on making progress on their individual-level OKRs at the expense of the team OKRs they are supposed to be supporting. If you do want to explore individual OKRs, we recommend waiting until your team level program has run successfully for at least two cycles and keeping participation optional.
When done well, personal OKRs tend to work best as a tool for individual growth, developing a new skill, expanding your network, or preparing for a leadership role, rather than as a direct driver of business outcomes.
The one context where individual OKRs remain genuinely powerful is executive coaching. Working one on one with senior leaders to define personal objectives around leadership development, strategic focus, or organizational impact is one of the more rewarding parts of my practice. We now offer this type of personal OKR development coaching that works even if your organization is not adopting OKRs; this is a separate program focused on personal development.
At that level, the stakes are high enough and the autonomy real enough that personal OKRs tend to drive meaningful change.
The Right OKRs Rollout Sequence
The question is not whether to deploy OKRs at multiple levels. Eventually, you probably should. The question is in what order, and with what structure.
Start with top level OKRs. Get those right first as they create the foundation everything else depends on.
Then pilot OKRs with a small number of teams before scaling. Taking a crawl-walk-run approach to your OKRs rollout is an OKR best practice. Use that pilot to figure out which team structure actually fits your culture and your work:
Functional teams if you value hierarchical clarity
Merged or cross functional teams if you want to break down silos
Customer centric squads if you are serious about putting the customer at the center of how your organization operates
Done in the right sequence, OKRs can do more than improve goal setting. They can reshape how your organization thinks about teamwork, accountability, and what it actually means to be aligned.
Done all at once, they become one more thing people fill out and forget. As Harvard Business Review frequently notes, strategy execution fails more often from misalignment than from poor strategy itself.
If you are not sure where your organization should start, that is exactly the kind of question we help leaders answer.
Request a call to explore the right rollout sequence for your organization.
OKRs Rollout: Frequently Asked Questions
How many levels should an OKRs rollout include?
Most organizations succeed with two levels: company level OKRs and team level OKRs. Individual OKRs are optional and increasingly uncommon. More levels do not automatically improve alignment, and in most cases fewer levels executed well outperforms a broad rollout done poorly.
Should we roll out OKRs at all levels at the same time?
No. Rolling out OKRs at every level simultaneously is one of the most reliable ways to overwhelm your organization before the program gains traction. Start at the top, complete at least one full cycle, then pilot with a small number of teams before scaling.
How long should we run company level OKRs before expanding?
We generally recommend completing at least one full 3-6 month cycle of top level OKRs before introducing team level OKRs. This gives leadership time to refine execution, demonstrate commitment, and create the strategic context that teams need to define meaningful OKRs of their own.
Why did individual OKRs fall out of favor after 2022?
Organizations that mandated individual OKRs found that the practice created more overhead than value. Employees tended to set conservative targets to protect their performance reviews, and individual goal chasing often came at the expense of team level progress. Many companies walked the practice back after seeing these patterns emerge. OKRs for personal development may still be useful.
What is the most common OKRs rollout OKRs mistake?
The most common mistake is scaling too fast without the right structure in place. This usually takes one of two forms: deploying OKRs to every level at once before the basics are working, or defining team level OKRs based purely on the org chart without accounting for cross functional dependencies. Both approaches create the appearance of an OKRs program without delivering the alignment it is supposed to produce.
Recent Comments