(2023-04-14) Cutler Tbm213 Goal Cascades Vs High Conviction Models

John Cutler: TBM 213: Goal Cascades vs. High-Conviction Models. Imagine a “normal” annual or biannual planning process (roadmap). Everyone is throwing out pet ideas! Politics everywhere. If something can generate immediate $ it is good—you might as well throw darts at the other stuff.

By December (or June), people just want it over. No one has any energy left to push back. But lo and behold, the plan emerges. How much conviction would you expect to emerge from that approach? Not much

Imagine a “normal” annual “cascading” OKR process

Down it goes—down the cascade. Each step involves assumptions. How much conviction would you expect to emerge from that approach?

It might be fine for immediate outcomes (transactional games) or long-term outcomes (with high conviction).

High conviction in your models is terrific if you can get it.

Most OKR goal cascades don’t fit the bill.

I’ve recently realized my problem with cascades. They tend to have low conviction.

Building conviction is a long-term and continuous effort in most cases (in some cases spanning jobs and companies).

I realized recently that all of my work on the North Star Playbook (see this resource library with tons of templates, videos, a book, etc.) was about developing a high-conviction model that could serve as a springboard for aligned autonomy

To tell the difference between a harmful cascade and an effective tree/graph, ask if it is a high-conviction model. If people shrug—wondering if their actionable goals will impact sustainable, long-term growth—you probably have a low conviction model and a harmful cascade.