Many teams give up on OKRs after doing everything “right”.

They follow the framework closely: define objectives, measure key results, but after a while, things still feel off. It didn’t do the trick. Perhaps OKRs aren’t for us after all.

That frustration is real. But the conclusion is usually wrong.

OKRs don’t fail because the framework is broken. They fail because they surface gaps teams have learned to live with: unclear priorities, postponed decisions, and ownership that isn’t as solid as it looks. When those gaps are forced into the open, discomfort follows – and the framework gets the blame.

This article looks at why that happens, and why the real work of making OKRs useful sits elsewhere.

Methodology can’t fix your culture

OKRs, like any other methodology, are usually introduced to fix something that feels broken – focus, alignment, prioritization, accountability. A framework promises clarity and discipline, but its power is limited.

At first, it works. It introduces structure and forces conversations that were easy to postpone before. With OKRs, teams are suddenly required to talk about objectives. They can’t just list initiatives or features. They have to answer a more fundamental question: what are we actually trying to achieve?

And that’s where things start to break.

If you can’t choose between multiple directions, OKRs won’t solve that tension. You’ll just end up with too many objectives. If a revenue discussion never goes deeper than “we need to hit our ARR target,” OKRs won’t add meaning. The objective will simply restate the number everyone already had in mind.

The framework forces the question, but it can’t force the answer. When organizations expect a methodology to do work that only leadership, strategy, and culture can do, the framework gets heavier or irrelevant, while outcomes stay the same.

No wonder you are frustrated. But it’s not because the methodology doesn’t work. It’s because you now see more clearly what is deeply broken.

When numbers replace thinking

One of the easiest ways to “do OKRs” without really doing the work they require is through key results – and numbers in general. On the surface, everything looks right. Objectives exist. Key results are measurable. Progress is tracked. But the harder work OKRs are meant to trigger never quite happens.

The point of OKRs is not the numbers. It’s what sits behind them. OKRs are supposed to push teams beyond metrics and into clearer thinking: what needs to change in reality, what assumptions are being made, and what success actually means in a complex, uncertain world. That work is abstract, uncomfortable, and often slow.

Numbers offer an escape.

They feel concrete and objective. They reduce complexity and create the illusion of control. By focusing on metrics, teams can stay busy and feel rigorous without confronting the harder questions. And because numbers are involved, it often feels like deep thinking is happening – even when it isn’t.

This is how OKRs quietly turn into a reporting exercise. Key results become a way to avoid ambiguity rather than explore it. The framework is still there, but the thinking it was meant to enable is missing.

When OKRs are used this way, the problem isn’t execution. It’s substitution. Numbers replace thinking, and any clarity created is shallow and often temporary.

The opportunity for a new language

If you really want to change culture, one effective way to do that is by changing the language people use.

This is where OKRs can create a real opportunity. Not because they force teams to speak differently, but because choosing OKRs usually signals something else: a decision to change how the organization looks at its work. A willingness to step back, question existing habits, and examine reality from a different angle.

That moment matters.

OKRs can be used as an excuse – a legitimate one – to change how people talk to each other. To move conversations away from tasks and output, and toward intent, outcomes, and tradeoffs. To ask different questions, and to expect different kinds of answers.

But a language only works if it’s used continuously. Not just in planning, but in tracking, replanning, and everyday decision-making. It has to evolve as reality changes, and it has to reflect what teams actually know, including things that haven’t yet reached management.

Only when OKRs are treated as a shared language across day-to-day work can they lead to real change. Otherwise, they remain a one-time exercise, no matter how well designed.

When they don’t work, it’s because of the work that never happened around it: real choices, clear priorities, and honest alignment with reality.

The problem was never the framework.