OKRs used well at enterprise scale. With an employee experience to match the value created.
We have done this tens of times with companies ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 people, and very few, if any, have the same experience.
You inherited a patchwork, or you grew one.
Perhaps one division runs OKRs, some have dashboards, most have nothing formal; reports vary by leader. You know there are things that work there, but nothing is unified or cohesive.
It usually arrives one of three ways: acquisitions never integrated past the finance system, fast scaling with autonomous teams who each solved it themselves, or a new leader who inherited all of it at once.
Enterprise experience, across sectors.
The obvious thing to do is get your own teams to roll OKRs out further. It fails, and it fails predictably.
Replacing a team’s way of working is a delicate act, not an administrative one; it needs to be done with care, respect and any changes managed.
The product team uses OKRs; marketing has dashboards, customer success tickets, and a few KPIs; other teams, whatever they like really. Flatten all of it and you have lost real capability to gain consistency.
A team defending its ritual is defending something it believes works. Overrule it and you have taught the whole company something more expensive than whichever framework won.
The first team through this migration teaches everyone else what to expect. Why your people behave the way they do →
So the job isn't replacement. It's convergence.
We meet you where you are and mature what you have. We don't arrive with a template and flatten it.
You can't install one operating system, or one AI thread, on top of five different methods.
That isn't a preference. Everything you will want next, reading across the business without translation, putting AI on your own decision history, moving people between teams without retraining them, needs one shape underneath.
Divergence used to cost you comparability, which is a slow and arguable cost. Now it costs you the whole next layer.
Your company is a finite block of hours. See the capacity story →
Somebody moves between two teams and doesn't have to relearn how work is run.
That is the test. Everything else follows from it.
It starts by naming what is good.
Not as a technique. Because it's true, and a team that has been told specifically what it does better than anyone else is considerably more willing to move on everything else.
It converges on shape, not vocabulary.
Teams keep more than they expect. Whether a team says rock or objective matters a great deal less than whether two of them can be compared.
And the sequencing is designed for what it teaches.
Volunteers first, strengths named first, exceptions kept visibly. People work out what really matters by watching what happens to the first team through.
Enterprise OKRs, in every shape they come.
The questions we actually get.
Does everyone have to give up their framework? +
Teams keep more than they expect. What has to become common is the shape of a goal, the rhythm of the review, and the measures that read across. Vocabulary matters far less than comparability.
What if one division refuses? +
Then this is the wrong instrument and we will say so. One division that won't cooperate is a leadership conversation, and it's a great deal cheaper than a programme.
Can we just do the survey? +
Yes, and some leaders do. It's scoped and priced on its own, the written picture is yours either way, and it's the only honest basis for pricing the rest.
How do OKRs work in a multinational? +
One shape for goals and one review rhythm across every country, with room for regions to set their own key results against local markets. What has to be common is how a goal is written and how progress reads across, not the vocabulary each office uses.
How do you run OKRs across multiple divisions? +
Start from what each division already does well, then converge on a shared goal shape, a common cadence and measures that mean the same thing everywhere. Divisions keep their autonomy over what they commit to, and leadership gets one picture.
Should enterprise OKRs cascade? +
No. Cascading turns OKRs into compliance. Large organisations align: leadership sets a few company objectives, and divisions and teams choose how they contribute, visibly linked rather than handed down.
What software do enterprises use for OKRs? +
Any tool works if the method is right. Ours is enterprise OKR management with an AI coach trained on the method you define, so quality holds across thousands of people.
How long does an enterprise OKR implementation take? +
The survey determines it. That's why we won't quote before doing one. What we can say is that migration runs team by team with volunteers first, so value arrives long before the last team moves.
Thirty minutes, and a straight answer.
You will leave knowing where your OKR implementation stands and what it would take to run it well across the whole organisation. If you don't need us, we will say so.