A sales OKR holds up when it improves how the number is made: win rate, cycle time, coverage. The quota restated is not an OKR.
Sales already has a number: the quota. An OKR that restates it adds nothing. The strongest sales OKRs change the machine that makes the number: win rate, sales cycle, pipeline quality, how deals are qualified and multi-threaded. Hit those and the quota follows for cheaper.
The test at the check-in: could the team hit this key result and still miss quota, or hit quota and still miss this? If both are possible, the OKR is measuring something genuinely different from the target, which is exactly the point.
Mål: Win the deals we choose to fight for
Measurable ★★★★★
Outcome-based ★★★★★
Focused ★★★★★
Niklas Olsson · OKR-coach
No. The quota is a performance target with its own machinery. The OKR is where the team works on the system behind the quota: conversion between stages, cycle length, deal quality. Restating the quota as an objective just gives the same number two names.
Rates and speeds over totals: win rate on qualified opportunities, first-to-second meeting conversion, median cycle length, coverage ratio. Totals like calls made are activity; they move whenever the team is busy, which is always.
OKRnest ger ditt team strukturen som exemplen bygger på, och en veckovis check-in-vana som håller dem vid liv. Gratis för upp till 3 användare.
The major challenge with sales OKRs is that they are often a little too generic, all about selling more. This might be an example of that: improving metrics in the sales funnel without any specific strategy. You can see a hint of strategy in key result two, cutting losses to no-decision, which would imply being more persistent on deals that are not moving. But that key result is also too easy to optimise the wrong way. I am not sure it will drive the right behaviour. Instead of pushing the right activity, the team can just mark losses for other reasons to hit the goal. Having fewer of one closed-lost reason is not a real business outcome, and the risk of driving the wrong behaviour here is high.
Key result three is just too complex, too internal. It may mean a lot inside the team, but from an outsider's perspective it is very hard to understand what they are trying to achieve. Overall there is clear measurability and a clear idea of driving an outcome that is selling more, but it carries a couple of quite large issues.