Love-hate relationship with OKRs by Mathilde Collin, Co-Founder & CEO of Front, on First Block

TL;DR

OKRs can lose value when meetings become score-tracking and the team stops extracting learning from results.

Briefing Cornell Notes

Briefing

OKRs create a built-in tension for early-stage teams: they demand constant score-tracking, but that can drown out the learning that makes goals useful. Mathilde Collin, co-founder and CEO of Front, describes a “love-hate” relationship with OKRs because meetings often turn into performance grading—watching progress against revenue, product usage, or market expansion targets—while the deeper insights about what’s resonating, what’s failing, and why get lost. Since the company is still learning, she argues that OKRs should not become the point of the exercise. The real value comes from repeatedly returning to the “why,” extracting lessons from results, and using those lessons to adjust direction. A common failure mode is when key results (KRs) start to swallow the objective (O): teams become fixated on the number, optimizing for scores rather than the underlying outcomes and learning those scores are supposed to reveal.

That same philosophy extends to radical transparency in how teams handle both good and bad performance. Collin ties transparency to engagement: she previously experienced a company that wasn’t transparent, and the result was lower involvement and trust. Her view is not that everything must be shared, but that “good transparency” helps answer questions while “bad transparency” creates more of them. She points to a practical boundary—Front does not publicize salaries—while emphasizing that deliberate transparency about what matters can build trust and speed up execution. The key is an “art” of transparency: being fully transparent on the issues that affect understanding and decisions, without pretending that every detail must be disclosed.

When a quarter goes poorly, Collin pushes back on the instinct to hide the miss. Entrepreneurs may feel they should downplay bad news and highlight what’s coming next, but she argues the opposite: openly acknowledging missed targets is more encouraging and ultimately creates more energy. People can usually tell when leadership is selectively talking about only the metrics that went well. That selective framing erodes trust and weakens the meaning behind the work—employees lose the link between their efforts and the results. By contrast, admitting what didn’t work makes the causal chain clearer: if revenue missed expectations, something is not working, and the team should focus on fixing it. In her framing, transparency and candid OKR review processes prevent teams from even having to debate whether to share bad outcomes; the discipline itself keeps learning and accountability at the center.

Cornell Notes

OKRs can become counterproductive when teams focus on scoring instead of learning. Collin says the biggest risk is when KRs overtake objectives, turning accountability into number-chasing and blinding teams to the “why” behind results. She argues that early-stage learning requires repeatedly extracting insights from outcomes, not just tracking progress toward revenue or usage targets. She links this to radical transparency: sharing bad quarters openly builds trust and engagement, because people can sense omissions and lose the meaning behind their work. Transparency should be deliberate—fully transparent on what matters, not necessarily everything (for example, salaries may remain private).

Why does Collin have a “love-hate” relationship with OKRs?

OKRs can shift meetings toward grading progress against goals (revenue, product usage, market expansion) while the learning and insights get lost. In early-stage work, the most important value is understanding what’s resonating and what isn’t, then using that knowledge to adjust. Collin also warns that KRs can become the O—teams optimize for the score rather than the underlying objective and the lessons the results should reveal.

What does it mean for KRs to “become the O,” and why is that harmful?

When key results take over the objective, teams stop using the metrics as signals and start treating the numbers as the goal. That can lead to behavior that improves the score without improving the real outcome the objective was meant to drive. Collin frames this as damaging because it disconnects accountability from learning and can hurt the company’s progress.

How does Collin define “good transparency” versus “bad transparency”?

Good transparency answers questions and reduces uncertainty; bad transparency raises more questions by withholding information people need to understand decisions and performance. She emphasizes that transparency doesn’t mean sharing everything—Front keeps salaries private—but it does mean being deliberate about what is shared so trust and understanding improve.

Why does Collin say transparency improves engagement and productivity?

She bases the claim on experience: a prior company that wasn’t transparent reduced her engagement. In her current approach, deliberate transparency builds trust and helps work move faster because people understand the context behind goals and results. She also argues that selective communication undermines trust because people notice when leaders only highlight what went well.

What should leaders do when the company has a bad quarter?

Collin argues against hiding the miss or only highlighting what’s next. She says openly stating that the quarter was missed is more encouraging and creates energy because it clarifies what didn’t work and what must change. Employees connect the dots—“I’m working on this because it didn’t yield the expected result”—which restores meaning and focus.

Review Questions

What specific failure mode makes OKRs harmful according to Collin, and how can teams prevent it?
How does Collin distinguish between transparency that builds trust and transparency that creates confusion?
Why does openly sharing bad quarter results increase engagement rather than reduce it?

Key Points

1
OKRs can lose value when meetings become score-tracking and the team stops extracting learning from results.
2
Early-stage teams need OKR reviews to repeatedly return to the “why,” not just measure pacing toward revenue or usage targets.
3
A major risk is when key results (KRs) replace the objective (O), leading to number-chasing instead of outcome improvement.
4
Transparency should be deliberate: share fully on what matters for understanding and decisions, without assuming every detail must be public.
5
Selective communication during a bad quarter erodes trust because people can detect omissions and lose the meaning behind their work.
6
Openly acknowledging missed targets clarifies what isn’t working and strengthens accountability by linking effort to outcomes.
7
Processes that prevent leaders from debating whether to disclose bad results help keep learning and candor consistent.

Highlights

OKRs become counterproductive when KRs swallow the objective, turning accountability into optimization for scores rather than learning.

Collin’s “good transparency” is information that answers questions; “bad transparency” is what leaves people confused and asking more.

A missed quarter should be stated plainly—people gain energy when the causal chain between work and results is honest.

Transparency doesn’t mean everything is public; salaries can remain private while still maintaining trust through deliberate disclosure.

People can usually tell when leadership highlights only the metrics that went well, and that selective framing damages trust.

Topics

OKRs
Transparency
Key Results
Bad Quarter
Team Accountability

Mentioned

Mathilde Collin
OKRs
KRs
O