I haven't yet seen an organization that benefited from OKRs. I'm not saying they don't work, I've just never witnessed them working.<p>My main gripes with them:<p>- They focus on output, and I believe most organization (especially startups) should focus on input. In that regard, I'd spend more time figuring out your internal playbook rather than measuring the (invariably too many) goals you've set for yourself and your team at the beginning of the quarter.<p>- The don't reflect reality. As soon as you set measurable outcomes for anything beyond the hard success metrics (e.g. revenue, profit, churn, CAC...), expect people to try and game the system. This leads to either people hitting the numbers but missing the mark, or simply failing to report accurately.<p>- They're mostly useful for underperformers. I have the same feeling about 1:1s. Your top performers usually don't need OKRs to know what needs to be done or how well they're performing. This ends up being a lot of busywork, especially for those who want to get sh*t done.<p>I wouldn't "improve" OKRs. I'd drop them:<p>- Set high level goals for the company (e.g. revenue, customer acquisition and employee retention).<p>- Have leadership set TODOs for the company and teams, BUT use this mostly as a way to foster debate and alignment on what needs to be done. Expect them to change often.<p>- Focus on your inputs. And on that topic, I would invest in building a culture of documenting what you do and how you do it (for example through a playbook). You can't build on quicksand.