Why Cascading OKRs Don’t Work — And What to Do Instead

Cascading OKRs have been the go-to method for aligning organizational goals from the top down. On paper, it sounds effective: start with strategic objectives, break them down into tactical targets, and then cascade them further into operational OKRs. But in reality, this approach often leads to misalignment, lack of ownership, and rigidity.

What if there was a better way? In this article, I’ll share why the traditional cascading approach fails and introduce a proven alternative: Team OKRs. By empowering teams to create their own OKRs in alignment with strategic goals, organizations can drive stronger engagement, faster execution, and greater adaptability. Let’s explore how to shift from cascading to aligning—and why it’s a game-changer.

Introduction: The Problem with Cascading OKRs

Cascading OKRs. I’ve been there. I’ve done that. And if you’re reading this, you’ve probably been there too. It’s a common approach—one recommended by OKR books, coaches, and consultants. The logic seems simple: start with strategic OKRs, cascade them down to tactical OKRs, and then further down to operational OKRs.

But here’s the truth: I’ve rarely seen it work.

This realization led me, years ago, to develop a different approach—what I now call Team OKRs. The premise is simple but powerful: OKRs should be written by the teams that “walk the talk.” These are the people doing the real work that drives progress. Instead of OKRs being cascaded down to teams, Team OKRs are created by teams—aligned with organizational objectives, but not dictated by them.

In this article, I’ll explain why cascading OKRs often fail, introduce the alternative approach of Team OKRs, and share how this shift can improve alignment, execution, and engagement.

The Traditional Approach to Cascading OKRs

Here’s how cascading OKRs typically work:

1. Strategic OKRs are set by the C-level leaders, often during an annual planning session.
2. These strategic OKRs are cascaded to the next level down (divisional or functional OKRs).
3. Then, each division or area cascades its OKRs down to the team level.

It sounds logical. But logic doesn’t always equal results.

The problem? Misalignment, lack of ownership, and rigidity.

• Misalignment: By the time OKRs reach teams, they’re often disconnected from reality. Teams end up working on objectives they had no say in, leading to low engagement.
• Lack of Ownership: When people are handed an OKR and told, “This is your target,” they’re less motivated to achieve it. They had no hand in its creation.
• Rigidity: If the market shifts or priorities change, these cascaded OKRs aren’t agile enough to adapt. The “cascade” process requires every level to adjust their OKRs, which is slow and cumbersome.

Team OKRs: the Alternative to cascading OKRs

Rather than cascading OKRs down, let’s flip the script. Let’s align instead of cascade.

With Team OKRs, the organization’s strategic objectives remain clear at the top. But instead of pushing OKRs down the org chart, teams create their own OKRs aligned with those objectives.

Here’s the process:

1. Leaders Define Strategic Objectives: The leadership team defines 3-5 clear, strategic objectives for the organization. These are big, bold outcomes like “Double our revenue by 2025” or “Become the #1 provider in our market.”
2. Teams Define Their Own OKRs: Teams are invited to create OKRs that align with these objectives. The goal isn’t to “match” the company’s strategic OKRs—it’s to define what the team can do to contribute.
3. Ongoing Alignment: Teams and leaders meet periodically to ensure alignment. But alignment doesn’t mean control—it’s a dialogue.

The result? Ownership, adaptability, and alignment.

Key Differences: Cascading vs. Team OKRs

The table below highlights the critical differences between Cascading and Team OKRs. While the traditional cascading approach relies on a top-down, command-and-control model, Team OKRs emphasize a more agile, team-driven process. The shift results in better alignment, greater adaptability, and higher engagement.

Cascading OKRsTeam OKRsTop-down approachBottom-up approachLeaders set OKRs at every levelTeams set their own OKRsRigid structureAgile and adaptableLow team ownershipHigh team ownershipDelays in adjusting to changeFlexibility to adapt to change

Shift Your Approach: From Cascading OKRs to Aligning

If you’re still using cascading OKRs, it’s time to rethink the approach. You’ll see higher engagement, faster execution, and better alignment with Team OKRs. Forget about top-down control—empower your teams to write their own OKRs that align with your strategy.

Here’s the key takeaway: Don’t cascade. Align. Encourage alignment between strategic objectives and team OKRs, but let the teams drive the process. This shift will result in more engaged teams, faster adaptations to change, and more meaningful outcome.

Final Note

I’ve been facilitating OKR sessions for over a decade, but in the past five years, I made a pivotal shift: prioritizing empowerment and collaboration over traditional cascading. This change led to the development of Team OKRs—a method that has driven measurable success for the organizations I’ve worked with. This concept is at the core of my upcoming book, and I’m excited to continue sharing these insights through articles leading up to its release.

If this approach resonates with you, or if you’d like to explore how it can benefit your organization, reach out to me. Let’s discuss.

aa Originally posted at Caroli.org