For many organizations, Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) have become synonymous with quarterly – or even annual – goal-setting. It feels natural: the quarter offers a clear time box, aligning strategy with delivery cycles and executive reporting. However, more and more teams discover that quarterly OKRs – rigid, output-driven, and checked only at the end of the cycle – are ineffective at achieving what OKRs are intended for: aligning strategy with execution. So what should we do instead?
This article explores why quarterly OKRs often fail, the dangers of confusing outcomes with projects, and how a mixed cadence of annual objectives, quarterly planning, and frequent check-ins can restore both focus and adaptability.
Why quarterly OKRs fall short
Slow or nonexistent feedback
Quarterly cycles are deceptively short when you set strategic goals – which is why many organizations work with annual cycles – but painfully long when you need feedback. Teams can spend weeks or months pursuing key results, only to discover late in the cycle that assumptions were wrong or customer needs have shifted. Learn more about this in leading vs. lagging indicators.
Locking in the wrong things
Another trap is rigidity. Once quarterly OKRs are set, leaders are reluctant to change them, fearing it signals instability. Yet markets shift, customers provide feedback, and priorities evolve. Static quarterly OKRs risk locking teams into goals that no longer matter.
Mistaking outputs for outcomes
Perhaps the most insidious failure mode is using OKRs to align around features or projects. A key result like “Launch mobile feature X by Q3” turns OKRs into a delivery checklist. Features and projects are outputs – they may or may not create value. Outcomes, such as “Increase mobile conversion rate by 15%”, describe the change we are after. Confusing the two undermines the purpose of OKRs: to focus on impact, not activity.
Drifting into the background
Quarterly cadences also tend to discourage daily use of OKRs in decision-making. Because the targets feel fixed until the end of the quarter, teams often treat them as distant checkboxes rather than living guides. As a result, OKRs fade into the background instead of helping with the daily prioritization. Without frequent interaction – asking in planning sessions, stand-ups, or one-on-ones “How does this choice advance our objective?” – OKRs lose relevance and become ceremonial rather than practical.
A better cadence: Annual, Quarterly and frequent check-ins
A growing number of organizations are finding success with a mixed cadence:
- Annual objectives capture long-term direction and ambition. They encode the organization’s purpose and prevent short-term thinking. Annual objectives should be few, memorable, and aspirational, setting the tone for how the company intends to create value over the year. They are not meant to be exhaustive lists, but guiding stars.
- Quarterly OKRs translate those ambitions into concrete focus areas for the short term. They act as stepping stones rather than fixed destinations. Each quarter, teams should ask: What part of the annual objective should we focus on in the next three months? This ensures that quarterly OKRs are aligned upward, while still leaving room for iteration. It is good practice to run a retrospective at the end of the quarter to formalize learning and improvement.
- Frequent check-ins (at least monthly, preferably weekly) keep the system alive and current. Instead of waiting until the end of the quarter, teams discuss progress, validate assumptions, and adjust key results, maybe even the objectives themselves. These check-ins aren’t simply status updates – they are opportunities to learn and improve. By discussing what’s working, what’s not, and where assumptions may have been wrong, teams can change course while there’s still time to make a difference.
This rhythm balances stability with adaptability: annual goals provide continuity, quarterly OKRs give focus, and check-ins create agility. The annual objectives prevent the organization from chasing every shiny object; the quarterly OKRs break down ambition into achievable chunks; and the check-ins ensure responsiveness to reality.
At the same time, this cadence makes the OKRs part of everyday decision-making, reminding teams of what’s important and providing opportunities to increase effectiveness… or be clear about changing direction. In our article on aligning OKRs across departments, we describe that OKRs are only truly effective when used daily across teams.
An example: a SaaS company may set an annual objective of “Become the most trusted platform in our market.” The quarterly OKRs could then focus on specific areas such as “Eliminate unplanned downtime” or “Improve responsiveness.” Check-ins would surface whether initiatives are actually improving trust metrics, allowing the team to drop low-impact projects and double down on what works.
Google, which popularized OKRs, has long advocated this layered approach: combining long-term direction with frequent learning loops.
Making the shift
Start with language
Shift the conversation from projects to outcomes. Ask, “What will be different if we succeed?” rather than “What will we deliver?” Features can still live in roadmaps, but OKRs should express the impact those features aim to create.
The FACTS framework can be useful. It emphasizes focus, alignment, and stretch goals, helping teams reframe OKRs around value instead of deliverables.
Pilot, don’t mandate
Pick one or two teams to try the mixed cadence and provide them with support along their journey. Encourage them to set annual objectives, draft quarterly OKRs, and run frequent check-ins. Collect stories about how early feedback or outcome-based framing changed their work. Use these stories to inspire others.
Embrace adjustment as strength
Changing a key result mid-quarter should not be a failure – it should be a sign that the system is working. If customer feedback invalidates an assumption, adjusting shows the organization values learning over stubbornness.
Signs your OKR system is healthy
- Conversations shift from delivery to impact. People talk about customer outcomes rather than project milestones.
- Progress drives decisions. Frequent check-ins lead to real adjustments in work, not just reporting.
- Stability and agility coexist. Annual objectives endure, but key results flex when reality demands.
- Teams feel empowered. OKRs guide direction but do not dictate solutions, leaving room for creativity.
Conclusion
Quarterly OKRs aren’t broken because the quarter is the wrong length of time. They’re broken because they often become rigid, output-driven rituals divorced from real feedback. A healthier alternative is to treat goal-setting as layered: annual objectives for continuity, quarterly OKRs for focus, and frequent check-ins for adaptability. And above all, keep the spotlight on outcomes, not projects.
Organizations that make this shift will find OKRs are no longer a bureaucratic chore, but a living system for learning, alignment, and impact used in day-to-day decision making.
References:
- Doerr, J. Measure What Matters. Penguin, 2018.
- Google re:Work – OKR guidelines: rework.withgoogle.com
- Ben Lamorte, The OKRs Field Book, Wiley, 2022.
