Writing good OKRs is one of the simplest ways to strengthen strategy execution discipline. Objectives provide direction, while Key Results supply measurable evidence of progress. When written well, they help teams focus on outcomes, make better decisions, and maintain a steady execution rhythm. In organizations with strong strategy execution habits, OKRs tend to be clearer, more outcome-driven, and easier to use as part of regular performance routines.
Yet many teams still struggle when writing OKRs, particularly when defining Key Results that are specific, measurable, and meaningful. The challenge is rarely ambition, it is clarity.
Below are the most common mistakes organizations make when defining Key Results when writing OKRs, why they matter, and how to avoid them.
1.Confusing tasks with measurable outcomes
A frequent mistake is writing Key Results as tasks instead of outcomes. Activity-based statements describe what the team will do, but not whether anything has improved.
“Launch the new customer portal” may be essential work, but it does not reveal whether the Objective has been met. Task-based Key Results weaken focus and give a misleading sense of progress.
Outcome-based Key Results, such as “Increase repeat customer logins from 12% to 20%”, keep attention on the real impact the team seeks to create. Activities can shift as circumstances change, but the intended result remains clear, which supports stronger execution discipline.
More examples of outcome based Key Results are available in the OKR Practitioner Playbook.
2.Choosing metrics you cannot influence
Another common issue when writing OKRs is selecting metrics that sound strategic but sit outside the team’s control. Measures such as overall revenue or broad market indicators are important, but they depend on external forces. When teams cannot see a direct link between their work and the movement of the metric, engagement declines.
A clearer approach is to distinguish between leading indicators and proxy indicators. Leading indicators sit earlier in a genuine cause–effect chain and can be identified by working backwards from the desired outcome. For instance, an increase in qualified leads usually precedes an increase in revenue.
Proxy indicators, by contrast, are correlated rather than causal. Organic website traffic does not lead to higher brand value, but it often moves in parallel and can offer a helpful approximation when the ideal measure is too slow or difficult to track. Both types can work well if they move steadily enough to reveal a meaningful trend over time.
Teams ultimately want to know whether the work they deliver is producing the expected effect. A simple way to do this is to review deliverables and the associated metric side by side during each check-in. Research from large technology companies suggests that only a small proportion of ideas, often around 10%, generate the intended impact. The only way to identify those few is to compare output and outcome frequently, drop low-value ideas early, and build on the ones that clearly shift the metric.
Good Key Results focus on the levers a team can influence directly, such as lead conversion, win rate, or cycle time. This keeps motivation high and supports more consistent strategy execution. A strong leading indicator must sit early in a genuine cause–effect chain, not just correlate with the outcome.
3.Writing broad statements without clear measurement
Teams sometimes rely on positive but vague wording. Phrases like “Improve product quality” or “Increase visibility” leave room for interpretation and often result in misalignment.
Effective Key Results include three components: a metric, a baseline, and a target. This transforms broad intentions into something measurable.
Lagging indicators confirm whether long-term outcomes have improved, but they often move too slowly to guide weekly or monthly decisions. Pairing them with leading indicators or proxy measures gives teams an earlier view of progress and helps them adjust execution before results drift off track.
Examples such as “Increase NPS from 35 to 45” or “Reduce ticket backlog from 420 to 200” create a shared view of success. Clear measurement supports more informed decisions and helps teams course-correct earlier.
Ready to bridge the Gap between Strategy & Execution?
Get started now with our Free OKR Mastery Email Course
4.Diluting focus by selecting too many Key Results
In an effort to capture every priority, teams often overload their OKRs. An Objective with too many Key Results spreads attention thin and reduces the ability to make meaningful progress.
When everything is important, focus disappears. Writing good OKRs requires deliberate prioritization. Leadership teams need to set priorities without spreading attention too thin. Limiting each Objective to a small number of Key Results strengthens focus, reduces noise, and makes progress easier to track.
OKR Mentors always advise 3-5 objectives and maximum 3 key results each, wich means 9- 15 key results in total.
Concentrated effort supports more predictable and effective strategy execution, especially during busy periods.
5.Setting targets without baselines or realistic ambition
A Key Result becomes unreliable when the metric chosen does not change in a steady, observable way. If a measure fluctuates wildly, updates irregularly, or only shifts after long delays, it becomes difficult for teams to understand whether execution is working. This is why selecting the right type of metric, whether leading or proxy, often matters more than the baseline itself.
A strong Key Result relies on a measure that can be tracked frequently, behaves consistently over time, and offers a stable signal rather than noise. This allows teams to see trends as they emerge, hold meaningful weekly or fortnightly check-ins, and adjust execution before outcomes drift.
Baselines still play a role because they clarify the starting point and make ambition more grounded. However, the priority is choosing a metric that teams can update regularly and read with confidence. Targets built on such metrics support more useful conversations, clearer decision-making, and more predictable execution.
6.Defining Key Results that are not linked to strategic guidance
One of the most overlooked mistakes is creating OKRs that float independently from strategy. Teams sometimes set goals that sound useful but do not connect to the organization’s strategic direction, priorities, or focus areas.
When OKRs lack strategic grounding, efforts scatter and the link between daily work and long term direction becomes weaker. This reduces the value of OKRs as a tool for strengthening strategy execution.
Teams can avoid this by reviewing the strategic guidance before drafting OKRs. Clear line of sight ensures that Key Results help move the organization in the right direction and strengthen alignment across teams. The Strategy Execution Playbook discuss how to ground OKRs in strategic direction without overcomplicating the process.
Conclusion
Writing OKRs is a practical skill that directly strengthens strategy execution. High-quality Key Results bring clarity, reduce ambiguity, and turn strategic intent into measurable progress. By avoiding these common mistakes, teams create OKRs that support better decisions, more consistent delivery, and a healthier strategy execution rhythm across the organization. Choosing metrics that teams can influence, update regularly, and read as clear trends strengthens the connection between OKRs and the daily discipline of strategy execution.