The OKR Podcast
The OKR Podcast

Episode 30 · 2 months ago

Why do OKRs fail?

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

5 ways OKRs go sideways and why. Tried OKRs and they didn't work or hearing that from a colleague? This podcast talks about why OKRs fail, the root issues, and gives a fresh perspective gaining their true value.

You're listening to the okay our podcast. We talk about the power of lateral alignment and outcome mindset and empowering teams to do their best work from anywhere. We also talk about operating as a digital company, which is crucial now here. Journeys, learnings and victories from our guest speakers and get expertise from our host to scale your leadership capacity and operate with high impact, trust and efficiency. Here's your host daydream pack nod. Hello. Today my guest is Samiramuinport. She leads customer success for Work Board and has been an okay our coach for I don't know, almost seven years now, working with enterprises of every size and shape in virtually every industry to help align, drive and accelerate strategy execution. And today we're going to have a an anti pattern conversation where we talk about what doesn't work in okay ours. We've done a bunch of podcasts, some together and a lot with other people, on how powerful okay rs work and what they look like when organizations have really got velocity with them and with the results they drive. But what we haven't done is talk about where they go wrong and when they break down and what it looks like when they don't work. So that's going to be our topic today. What are the failure points? What does it look like when they don't work? And then in part two of this podcast will come back and get into more detail and get a bit more literal on how to make them work in your organization. So, Sammy are, let's talk about how okay ours don't work. I think, Sajory, I'm super excited to be here, and I've heard they don't work quite a few times, maybe once or twice more recently, as more and more organizations start to practice building the habit of setting an aligning on what their objective and outcomes are. So it's gonna be a great topic. It's exactly right so that one of the biggest refrains is, well, we tried them once and they didn't work, so they won't work now. And I hear that, as you point out, more more often now as more organizations are trying okay cars and more teams are trying okay Rs, and I always find that a little bit funny that we tried something once and it didn't work. Well, so we'll never try it again. In my professional career most of the organizations I know have tried to implement salesforce or Crm at least three times and it was clunky and gunky and the data didn't work and nobody updated it. But one thing you never hear is somebody say, Oh yeah, well, we tried crm but it didn't work, so we're gonna go back to spreadsheets. Or when have you ever heard about a great e R P implementation? Never, it's always harder than you think. It never does the value drives the value want. It's always more complex, always takes longer. But does anyone say yeah, but we'RE gonna go back to managing inventory and financials and spreadsheets? No, they actually instead say, okay, post mortem, what can we do better? And they iterate and learn, which is you know, ironically, that one of the mimary values of okay ours is to iterate and improve. Yeah, it's a fascinating thing that people expect that on your first attempt, or uh your first attempt at anything, that you're going to be great at it, and so I'm excited to dive into what some of those common fail points are and okay, and let's just acknowledge those and go forward. From there. Yep, cool. So there are really five major failure modes when organizations try okay Rs, and let's let's talk through Um, those five and as as I mentioned at the outset, right. Well, we'll talk to the five in this episode. We'll talk about why you should do okay rs at all, why would you? And then in our second episode on this series will come back with how. Right,...

...so let's jump into the five failure modes. What's the first and most common thing you see? The most common thing we see is that companies do okay ours in name only. So what does in name only means? We have a process for goal setting already. Maybe we're setting annual goals with some level of milestones or measures, and we're gonna take that same process and lap on the label okay ours. We now have. Our goal became the objective of milestones became the key results. We have the same process that we had before, just a new name, but we have the same result in our business. And so they're not actually teams aren't actually getting any utility or any benefit from aligning on outcomes because really we're just taking a new label on the same existing process that we've had in our company for years and years and years and years. Yeah, and you miss all the opportunity for higher iteration, outcome, mind set, ownership at the team level, the opportunity to aim for great all those things that are not present in typical goal setting. You you lose those two and one very related. I see taking the Kpis we've always had, which are lagging financial indicators, and calling them the trendy name okay Rs, and they're they're still just the same kpis we always had and we're still getting the same business results we always did as a function of that. So let's go into the second one, and I know this one. You and I both have seen Um and talked about really quite a lot, and that is the acronym takes on a life of its own and it obscures the purpose and the intent, the meaning of what we're trying to do together. And it is Um and it can almost get like religious dogma around okay ours, as if doing okay ours is a result by itself. And it's not right to talk a little bit about how you see the acronym balloon into something that is, I'll say, misguided. Every company has so many acronyms already, whether it's okay, ours V two MOMS, the acronym for every department, every new product process, every customer success process, every salesforce process, and the last thing anyone needs is yet another acronym. And so what happens is when we introduce okay ore is, it's an easy thing to remember. There's three letters, okay are and people just start talking about the OKA as if it's just the acronym and we missed the substance itself. That no, the Oh is the objective. It's what are we trying to achieve? Why does it matter? The KRS are the outcomes that we're driving towards in a given time period? And when we start to repeat the acronym over and over again, whether it be in all hands or team meetings or just simply introducing the concept, it's easy to latch onto the acronym itself and actually lose sight of why we're doing this in the first instance. What's the actual objective we're driving towards? What are the actual outcomes we want to focus on? And and that's hard when you're trying to drive change and people only remember the three letter acronym. And they don't remember the why behind it, you get stuck. And so actually my recommendation, and Dat your years as well to a lot of organizations, is when you have communications about what the objectives and key results actually are, write it out. Objectives and key results. Here's the objective, here the outcomes we're driving towards. Let's not use the acronym in our internal calms, in our internal team meetings, in the internal conversations we have with each other, and let's bring it back to what we're actually trying to drive towards in the first instance. Yeah, yeah, I think knowledge does no one need another acronym. Nobody really needs another process either. Right. And then when that the acronym and the process sound dogmatic and religious and...

...they're repetitive, divorced from their purpose, it's very easy to say no, thank you, I don't need that, I don't want it, I'm not even interested. I don't want to learn another acronym. On the other hand, if you say I think it's important that we are aligned on our intentions and our objectives and we have clarity between us, within the team and with other teams on the outcomes we're trying to drive most people will say yes, we could use a lot more of that and just speaking in plain English, where the intent and the purpose comes through and comes forward, align on our intentions and our objectives and get clarity on what value we're trying to create within our team and across teams. You can say that all day long and people will sign up for it all day long because we all fundamentally need that as humans at work to be successful together. Not only do we fundamentally need that, of us want that, like we're craving that every single day. So it's it's tappened to what people want, the whiffy for every person or the what's in it for them and what's in it for you, and then the acronym won't take the life of its own because the acronym won't even matter at that point. Call it whatever you want, but let's make sure we're stay true to the intention that we're driving towards. So that actually sets up and relates very much to another failure point. We see the third one, which is okay, ours, become a fringe process that nobody cares about and it's additional work we have to do token data entry because into a spreadsheet because somebody wants us to do it and we really don't care. It's not actually central to what we're doing this week, what we're talking about this week or what we're talking about this month. When you see that kind of fringe process, are there's? Are there other kind of related dynamics that you see that that trigger when no cares get done like that? What are the dynamics that lead organizations to this particular failure point? Yeah, I think one of a clear example of when organizations fall into this trap, I'll say, is you create a meeting to review your okay ours. We've now added three meetings in our team. Two won't review are okay and the guidance. There is no, no, you shouldn't need another meeting to review what we agreed on would be most important as a team. You probably already have a weekly staff meeting. You probably have a monthly offs review or monthly Business Review. The okay are the key results, the outcomes your driving tour. That's what's the agenda now in those meetings. That's what we should be discussing and if you find there's a big discrepancy between you know what we discussed in our team meetings and what we put on our okays and what we've written down is to what we want to align on. Then maybe you don't have the right objectives, key results, and that's sometimes uncomfortable for teams as well when they realize, Oh boy, we just said we want to go focus on these sets of things, but there's no space to focus on those in our week. Like where does our time go? How do we prioritize? Where are the trade offs? That might be a reset for the team and that we maybe haven't focusing on the wrong things in the past and now it's time to re shift the focus to what matters most. And good news is that's why you're doing this in the first instance, like let's rely on what matters most for our team. Let's get clarity on that, let's make sure we're all on the same page. Really Focus, focus, focus, and then go forward and just do that in the existing business cadences you have. Don't add in that new cadence to talk about you're okay, RS now bring it right into the mix. One on one, team meetings, NBRS, whatever there might be, and anytime you find yourself adding additional meetings, the process has gone to process the...

...con rogue. Yeah, it's it's a bankrupt process at that point, right. It's. Yeah, it's an overlay, when its power is to actually help us prioritize effort on what matters most and focus our attention on removing the roadblocks and creating the opportunities that allow us to achieve those outcomes. And to your point, if that's not what we're talking about, it eastaff in our huddles and in our business reviews, we're either just wasted a whole bunch of time talking about the wrong stuff, or what we aligned on is hollow. Those are the only two scenarios where we have a whole business cadence that is divorced from the outcomes we agreed on and aligned on as a team and as an order. Like they really have to come together so that what we align on, is what we focus on, is what we talk about, is what we remove roadblocks around. I think it's Um one of the myths about okay RS, which is very outdated, is well, Google twenty years ago used to do OK cares and they would just look at them in the middle of the month and the end of the month. So that's how you do it. That's how you do it. If you're born Google and you're the only ad machine, you have the only youtube, you should do it that way. But even Google is not that anymore. And so if you look at Google now and we look at, for example, the Google cloud business, which is third in its category, they're looking at their okay rs at least twice a month, because focus is how you achieve those Krs and ignoring them is not how you achieve those krs. I think that, but that you never have to look at them thought is a very outdated Um, very one company, that one time model for how to think about okay. Ours in the world just moves way too fast for that. If you take your eye off the ball for uh, three weeks of the quarter, that's record of your quarter lost. You can't recover that time. You just can't. And have a set not in total, definitely not. We all have a set amount of time every single day and use that time to your advantage. Use it to focus on the things that are most important to your team into the business, that are in alignment with what we're all trying to achieve. And most of the time that's might not be the things that you're talking about in your staff meeting today. So reshifting, refocusing is helpful. I think that's a this is actually not and okay our, I feel, as much as it is maybe a leader and a manager fail, which is if you took the team's time to agree in a line on a set of outcomes, but that's not what you're really driving to or that's not what you're focused on, or that's not what you're asking them about out and maybe you're never asking them about that. That's that's kind of on you. That's you misaligned with yourself at a really simple level. Right. And as a team manager, it's versus a leader of teams, of teams. I think it's still the same thing, right, if you use a team's time, you've got the team to agreement and alignment on, okay, here's what we're going to accomplish, and then that's not what you lead to week to week. That's a that's a manager breakdown, not an okay, our breakdown, for sure. Sure. Okay, let's talk about the next one, one of my favorites. Okay, we did okay RS and the teams wrote them. But, okayres don't work because they're okayres were terrible. Their objectives were bad, they weren't really aligned, they didn't pay any attention to my objectives. The KRS are just a task list. Okres definitely don't work because the team's Okres are...

...terrible. I love this one because, especially if it's like the first or second quarter cycle, actually okay ours worked perfectly. They literally you asked the team to write down what they believe the objectives to be, what they believe aligns to what you asked for and what they believe the results are trying to create are. And they did that. And now what you know is the quality and clarity of their thinking, how clearly they understand what your intentions are, how much they've localized and translated that into their world, how well they've interpreted that and how clear they are or are not on what an outcome really is or what a business outcome really is. In that instance, that where okay rs have no integrity and and there's low quality, low alignment. Even bad okay rs are really good information. Now you know what the alignment challenge really is. Now you know what the clarity challenge really is. Now you know how far your team, your Oregon, is from an outcome mindset and how deeply entrenched it is in output and activity. Overall else, it's so unbelievably powerful. But sometimes I see leaders look away from that data because they don't like the picture it shows them and they think if they don't look at Okay Rs, at the Crummy Okay Rs, that somehow that there won't be crummy thinking that if they just hide from what they learned, they somehow can unlearn it. And really the only way to change what you've learned is to actually go tackle the alignment and clarity problems right to enable to coach, to actually invest the time in ensuring that people really are able to localize and internalize the strategy, that there really are able to understand the outcomes are trying to create and be clear about those and measure those in new ways. And and Coaching Works and the absence of coaching will just will continue to draw the same picture, even if you don't look at it. The transparency gives you immense amounts of data and don't shy away from the data. Like every single step of the way there is going to be data that you discover, not data necessarily in the sense of this was our achievement against the key results. But data and why did they choose these measures versus another? Why is their intention this versus that? And that data gives you insight into your point indread the clarity or lack thereof, and they're thinking and the alignment or lack thereof. Then now you have a framework, in a way to have a conversation. So you're talking about apples and apples, not apples and pencils or, you know, whatever the combination might be, but you have a clear way to all move together and move forward together. Yep, Yep. I think that there is a close sister to that, which is we. We've done okay ours two quarters and they're not perfect yet. This, this is broken and in fact you and I've done okay ours together for really quite some number of years, which is you know, and we do them quarterly, and one of the reasons to do them quarterly is you get an opportunity to improve what you measure and improve how you understand or what you understand about value creation every quarter and there is something to be learned every quarter and that iteration and like how do we improve what we're measuring? How do we improve how we understand where value it is created. That creates the lolcity. You don't ever get...

...them perfect. The actual benefit and value is just getting them better. I always get asked like how will we know when we're done? When will this journey be over? Like when is when? When do we know the joy? We're at the end of the journey, and it's like, well, actually, the secret is there really is no end to the journey. Like the journey is every single step of the way, like the end is every day when you're learning more, I don't even call it the end, but every single day you're learning and iterating and learning and iterating and you're learning. You're getting different insights from whether it's looking at your own teams objectives and results in the progress, peer teams, objectives and results in progress, the conversations you're having about the results in progress and did we measure the right thing? Did we focus in the right way? And every step of the way there will be something that brings you one step up and one step up and one step up, and if the staircase might never have a you know, end, but you're continuously going to be on. Really the journey itself is this destination. There is no one set destination. Elevating your impact quarter after quarter after quarter. And, in really simple terms, one when that's one of the reasons why startup companies moved so quickly, why value velocity is higher in a in a startup world, right, is this constancy of how do we elevate? How do we improve? How do we raise our game? How do we raise our impact? And they're born that way and people inside them tend to act and behave that way. The second is that elevate every quarter. Elevate every quarter. That's what the CEO of every public company needs to drive every quarter forever. The market is unforgiving. It always wants more from you. And how do you get more? Well, by improving every quarter. It's actually such a natural rhythm of business. It's not really in that new thing that we would iterate and learn and iterate and learn. And it's interesting, how that the fundamental nature of our business. We have to get better every quarter because our public shareholders expect it. Why? That's so decoupled from how we might think about okays, that we're going to get better every quarter because our public shareholders expected ripe or because our own career aspirations include that. I want to be smarter, better, sharper faster every quarter, as as a person and as a professional, and I don't actually want anything less than that either. So let's go to the next one. Out of sight, out of mind. We set them and then we probably forget them, so we didn't see any results. I mean, when you just say it like that, I think there is nothing else can be said. Right, you set them and you never look at them again. It's not magic, I mean, and I don't know the magic yet, I don't think it's not magic. Right, if you have to set them and look at them every single week, it's perhaps to an outdated like comparison in two, but I want to be an x shape. I'm not going to get into that shape if I don't exercise and eat well and actually monitor what I'm doing. It's not going to happen. When I say I want to be, you know, able to run a mile in less than seven minutes and then just sit on the couch for twelve weeks straight. Like. If that was the case, I mean, we would all be in very different scenarios. But Yeah, the outer side out of mine where set them and then we don't look at them for twelve weeks and our results, you know, we didn't achieve the results we want. I think we always do. Just bring that back to the table, like how how would you if you didn't ever look at them again? Yeah, if you don't look at your sales pipeline for twelve weeks, you you don't make your number either, and that's not heard of. It's ridiculous. Of course you have two kidens calls a week to look at the pipeline because you really, really want to make that number. And these are all the other numbers in the business that help you make the...

...sales number. You need to make them all just as badly. Right. Yeah, in that scenario, right out of side, out of mind. It's it's not that okay rs don't work, it's that they don't work how you're doing them. Okay. Last one, and I know this is when you're seeing more often now um, and particularly the context of like workboard platform, where we make it really easy for cross functional teams or groups of people who don't report to each other to come together and set joint okay RS or joint objectives and results for this cross function or more dynamic team and and you're seeing some pushback, while people are saying we want to disable the ability for those teams to come together and set cross functional objectives and key results. Talk to us a little bit about like what's the dynamic there, and then what are the implications of that? Yeah, so the starting dynamic is both of us aren't working just within our own functions anymore. Right, we need to drive lateral alignment in the business. So the product that we build needs to be the product that we market, which is the product that we sell and the product that we uh drive adoption with uh for with our customers, and therefore there's a higher need to make sure that the folks in product engineering, the QUA team, finance, every single part of the organization come together to align on what a success look like for go to market initiative, a product or you know, whatever it might be. And so, of course, with that we're going to start seeing a creation of UH teams or groups that come together that are off the functional or chart. So therefore, the people working together might not report to one another, there might not be a common structure for that teaming mechanism today. So what we see as teams start to create and use the shared language of aligning on what the objectives and outcomes are, to align on what a success look like, and that might be more teams than you initially thought. Right. More and more groups are coming to work together cross functionally, and the push back I get is where are all these teams coming from? Why are so many teams setting cross functional okay rits, how do I get that to stop? And my question back is, why do you want that to stop? Now you have a way to see what those people are actually working on and what they're working towards and what, all day they're working towards with the people that they meet with. Give them this construct that allows them to align on what their intention is, what the outcomes are and isn't. Is it in alignment or not with what the business is trying to achieve? And maybe it is, that's awesome. Let's help them connected off and if it isn't, that's awesome too. Let's help them refocus, reprioritize and see where folks are spending their time. The other kind of parallel dynamic is because of the cross functional nature of so many businesses today, one person might be part of six or seven teams and maybe there's someone on your team that is on six or seventeens and another person that's on two or one or not even getting pulled into any cross functional work. And how do you balance and prioritize accordingly across your team members, especially in an environment where maybe as a manager, you're not working with your direct team every single day. You manage the team functionally, but your team members are working on the pods, squads, groups that they work on across the business. So if you say, if you if your first instinct is to say stop the cross functional teaming, my request or my ask to all of you is actually stop that request and say what are they focusing on, what are they aligning on, what are they setting and does it align or not align? And how do we help the teams actually get clarity for what they're what they're driving towards? But this one really it gets me every single time dad reads it's interesting in the dynamic of it. It is Um you know, in the abspect it sounds like we'll have no cross functional alignment here, like we've got...

...to we've got to stop doing that. Right and I'm sure there's more detail and maybe it overwhelmed some people sometimes to sort of see while there's more interestitial tissue than I thought and that's overwhelming and can't we just go back to simple ORC chart? But I think actually it's Um self forming teens people who come together independently, autonomously. Groups of people come together and they know they have a felt dependency on each other. They know they need shared purpose to be successful and they use the common language of aligning on results to not only get clarity but to hold each other accountable without the benefit of a manager telling them what to do or driving accountability. That epitomizes new ways of working. That epitomizes an organization that has clarity and autonomy right, which is what I think most of us hope our organizations actually have. Right. You want to empower that, not slow it down, tamp it down right or cut it off. The felt dependency exists right. The need to work together towards outcome exists. You can make them do that on the friend or in sidebar processes that you can't see and that are disconnected, or you can leverage the language of alignment that you use across the rest of the organization and empower and enable them to actually be as aligned as they can be on the best outcomes for the ORG okay. So we covered five major fail points. Okay are as a name only. We take the old process, give it a new name get the same result. We let the acronym overwhelm and take a life of its own and we lose the meaning and intention of okay ours. We do it as a fringe process and we don't embed it into the rhythm of the business. It's we're not talking about what we aligned on in our staff meetings, are huddles and our business reviews. The team doesn't write great okay Rs and we decide that means it doesn't work. So we can't do that anymore. We set them and we forget them. They're out of sight, out of mind and shock we don't achieve the outcomes and we don't want cross functional teams to set okay are as. We want to go pure hierarchy Um, and so we kill the Golden Goose, the golden goose of alignment, and and we say we'll have no more goose. So those are the five fail points. Let's step back and talk a little bit in this podcast about why you would do okay rs in the first instance. And then we'll come back in the second episode with this and do have a fuller discussion on how to do them well and really get into the how. But what's the point? Our purpose of Foak cares? When you think let's do them, what should the drivers for that be like? Why should you head down the path of okay, RS, I think in the in the simplest way to put it, is every company and every company that we work with and all of you have a brilliant strategy and you need a brilliant way to actually execute that strategy. If you do it the same way we've been doing it for the past, I don't know, a hundred years even, it's going to be harder to execute your strategy. And you have a really bold strategy these days, and so the execution just needs to be just as good. And Okay, give you a framework to be able to execute on that strategy. Yeah, I think that. I see them as part of the strategy execution stack. Right there, a mechanism of aligning with real intention. Right, we're actively aligning on outcomes, as opposed to we're accidentally aligning on outcomes or we're just a...

...zooming. We're aligned on outcomes. We have no mechanism and no method for that. So I think okay is a really powerful as when you have a bold strategy and, as you point out, most organizations have a transformer dye strategy right now. Right if you're not a motive if you're in commerce or or retail, if you're in tech and your old tech and you haven't yet moved your whole business to subscription and cloud, if you're in healthcare and you haven't figured out how to deliver it different venues and vehicles, it's a transformer die moment for strategy right and at the same time it's also economic headwinds. So the strategy needs to be bold. On the strategy execution needs to be, as you point out, as brilliant as a strategy. How efficiently you use the resources, the capacity and the time the organization has to execute on that strategy will matter a lot in recessionary headwinds and more challenging times and matters a lot in a labor constrain market. You don't have enough talent to achieve that strategy if you leave twenty ort of it sitting on the bench because they don't know the strategy or they don't know how to contribute to the strategy. So I think it's you might undertake it because you've got big ambition, you think time and resources are scarce and you want to make sure you maximize the time and resources on that ambition. Right, I think. Secondly, it's super important if you if the chance, if the transformation strategy requires you to operate in new business models, in new business venues or new innovation, you also need a higher cadence of learning and iteration. You don't know what you don't know about the business model you're going to and your whole organization has got a lot of muscle memory on the old business model, and so the quarterly cadence of iteration can not only help you be aligned on that, but it can also make sure that you have a built in cadence of learning as you are moving to something that is completely new for the organization, whether that's a technology or a business model or a market segment that you haven't been in before as well. That strategy and urgency, plus scarcity, those are reasons, I think, to say we are going to have more overt, explicit cadence of alignment and that's going to be intentional and it's going to be episodic, as opposed to once to hear we're gonna build and learning and then you can't stop it. OKAYRES, you have to actually say that's how we're going to get aligned. Now, how are we going to drive to those things we aligned on? And so I think it's so crucial that you say you really think intentionally about my okay rs are going to flow into my quarterly okayres are going to flow into my monthly business reviews and they're going to flow into my weekly one on ones and staff meetings and they really embedded into the rhythm of the business. The cadences quarterly alignment, monthly business reviews, weeklies, and where I think of business reviews is cross functional checkpoints and alignment points, and I think of weeklies as one on one and one team at a time, alignment and checkpoints. That cadence right, quarterly, monthly, weekly, that that's crucial to execute on the strategy. It's not crucial to do okay ours, but if your purpose is to make strategy execution as brilliant as a strategy, the whole cadence actually matters quite a lot. So I actually there's two more drivers of why you would adopt okay RS and take a more cohesive approach to strategy execution. And the first is if your strategy calls for you to accelerate, you can only accelerate if you're actually moving faster. Hard to accelerate...

...if you're moving at the same speed you've moved your whole lifetime as a company, and so the pace in which you're executing against the strategy, iteration of the strategy, all of those components help you accelerate. And so think about the words that you're using in your strategy, whether it's, you know, we need to accelerate our move to the cloud, or we need to digitize x, accelerate and getting digital. That can't be done the same way it was done in the past, or else you're moving at the same speed in the same analog way as before. And then the second is give a bold strategy that you're trying to accelerate within the organization. You're trying to accelerate something in the market and people are still working from home. That's actually another reason to be more intentional about strategy execution. How do we include people, no matter where they are, in what the strategy is how they're going to execute and help execute against it. And in the new cadence of the business, no longer everyone in the same space, in the same spot and learning BIOS Bosis or getting the latest news and knowing what they need to do buyosbosis. But we actually need to be intentional about the inclusion of making sure that every single person in every single team understands the impact they make and how that contributes to what you're trying to drive across the entire organization. Awesome points. When you think about in as company, the top three layers of leadership are one of the employees of the company, of the employees in the company below that. And your actual strategy execution is the million micro decisions that people make every single day in the organization and if they're making those without regard to the strategy and what's most important in the value trying to create this quarter Um strategy execution is gonna be pretty sloppy and unreliable and unpredictable. Okay, we've covered the problems. We've covered why, okay, ours don't work, how they break down, why they don't come together. Who told a few war stories? We might have laughed a little at some of the stories. Hopefully that, though, was provocative food for thought and maybe Um shared wisdom with some of our listeners. What we're gonna do in the next episode then's we'll come back and we'll dig into really how do you take a cohesive you to strategy execution, using okay rs as a mechanism of alignment, and then embedding that and flowing that into the rhythm of the business, the operating cadence, and accelerating that cadence to accelerate strategy execution? That will be our episode two in the series. Samier, thank you very much for joining me on the podcast again. Thanks for having me. I can't wait for episodes. It'll be fine. Thanks you've been listening to the okay our podcast. Subscribe in your favorite player so you never miss a moment. Thanks for listening. Until next time, M H.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (31)