Why Quarterly Goals Might Be Holding You Back
Every quarter, leadership teams set OKRs with big expectations. The idea is simple: set ambitious goals, align teams, and track progress in manageable, three-month chunks.
And on paper, it works. Quarterly cycles are predictable, easy to manage, and neatly align with business planning.
But here’s the issue: real work doesn’t fit into neat 90-day boxes.
For some teams, three months feels like a lifetime. For others, it’s not enough time to build momentum. Yet quarter after quarter, we squeeze wildly different goals into the same rigid structure.
The result? Teams either rush to finish or lose focus altogether.
This raises a critical question: what if the problem isn’t the work, but the timeline? Could a more flexible approach to OKRs unlock better alignment, focus, and results?
Why Quarterly OKRs Are the Default
Quarterly OKRs have been the backbone of goal-setting for decades. They’re simple, predictable, and fit perfectly into business cycles.
Imagine this: a leadership team sets goals at the start of a quarter. By the end, they measure results, evaluate performance, and press reset for the next three months. The rhythm is comforting.
But here’s the problem: work isn’t predictable.
Take an engineering team, for example, exploring new technology for a future product. Does it make sense to expect tangible results in just three months? Probably not.
Or consider a marketing team launching a campaign. They might crush their goals in six weeks, leaving them to coast—or scramble to justify the rest of the quarter.
The reality is, not all work happens at the same pace. Quarterly OKRs assume it does, and that assumption can hold teams back.
What Flexible OKRs Could Look Like
What if, instead of forcing work into quarters, we let the work define the timeline?
Here’s how it could work:
Start with your north star. Define one overarching company OKR that aligns with your mission and long-term vision. This serves as the foundation for everything else.
Break it into components. Identify the smaller goals that need to be achieved to make the north star a reality.
Assign dynamic timelines. Let the complexity of each goal determine the timeframe—whether it’s six weeks, six months, or something else entirely.
Instead of asking, “What does Team X need to deliver this quarter?” you’d ask, “What does this goal need, and who’s best positioned to make it happen?”
This subtle shift could turn OKRs into a tool for alignment and focus, rather than a constraint.
Addressing the Common Objection
At this point, you might think: “If it’s a six-month project, why not break it into two three-month chunks?”
It’s a fair suggestion. And for linear, straightforward projects, it might work. But for many goals, this approach creates problems:
False milestones: Breaking work into arbitrary chunks can lead to artificial checkpoints that don’t reflect real progress.
Context switching: Forcing teams to reframe work every three months wastes time and disrupts momentum.
Loss of depth: Teams may prioritize what’s achievable in three months rather than what’s truly impactful.
The truth is, work doesn’t always fit into neat, 90-day increments. And trying to force it often leads to inefficiency and frustration.
The Benefits (and Challenges) of Flexibility
The Benefits
Flexible OKRs can eliminate silos by shifting the focus from “What does this team need to deliver?” to “What does this goal need to succeed?” This approach encourages collaboration and makes progress more interconnected.
It also ensures that timelines match the complexity of the work. Some goals might take six weeks to complete; others might need six months of exploration. Flexible OKRs allow teams to work at the right depth, not just the right speed.
And when priorities shift—as they inevitably do—flexibility allows teams to pivot without waiting for the next quarter.
The Challenges
But flexibility isn’t without risks. Without clear timelines, priorities can spiral. Leaders must ensure that flexible goals remain tied to the company’s north star—and that everyone understands how their work fits into the bigger picture.
Flexibility isn’t about chaos. It’s about disciplined adaptation.
Could AI Help Bridge the Gap?
One of the biggest challenges of flexible OKRs is managing the complexity. But what if AI could help?
Imagine a tool that tracks team dynamics in real time, analyzing Slack threads, meeting notes, and feedback loops. Instead of waiting for a quarterly review, you’d get insights like:
“You’re 70% aligned, but conversations are drifting in X and Y areas.”
“Team energy is dipping—focus on Z to stay on track.”
AI could turn intangible factors like alignment and momentum into actionable metrics. This would make flexible OKRs easier to implement—especially for teams that lack traditional KPIs.
The question is: are we ready to trust AI to help us measure what truly matters?
Closing Thoughts
Quarterly OKRs have served organizations well, but it’s time to ask: are they helping us achieve meaningful progress—or just keeping things tidy?
Flexibility doesn’t mean abandoning structure. It means evolving it to better serve the work. With the right tools, discipline, and mindset, flexible OKRs could unlock new levels of alignment and impact.
So, the big question is: are we ready to move beyond the comfort of quarters?
