OKRs and Systems Thinking
Driving Holistic Change in the Public Sector
We know that OKRs foster focus, alignment, and measurable outcomes. Yet, to truly transform public services—where bureaucracy, interdependencies, and long-term societal impact are daily realities—we need a broader perspective. This is where systems thinking comes in: a framework that views organisations not as isolated silos, but as interconnected ecosystems where every part influences the others. By combining OKRs with systems thinking, public sector leaders can avoid short-sighted fixes and drive sustainable change that benefits the entire system—from citizens to communities.
What Is Systems Thinking?
At its core, systems thinking is about understanding complexity. Traditional management often fragments problems, addressing parts in isolation—like fixing a leaky pipe without examining the whole plumbing system. Peter Senge, in The Fifth Discipline (1990), describes organisations as living systems: dynamic, interdependent, and full of feedback loops. A change in one area—say, education budget cuts—ripples into others, such as social service demand.
Donella Meadows, in Thinking in Systems (2008), highlights the importance of leverage points—places where small interventions produce significant outcomes—and warns against “fixes that fail,” short-term solutions that create long-term problems. In the public sector, policies on housing, health, and transport are deeply intertwined. Ignoring these interconnections leads to inefficiency and unintended consequences, as seen when one department’s “success” creates challenges elsewhere.
Systems thinking encourages a holistic perspective: mapping interconnections, recognising delays, and balancing short- and long-term effects. For public leaders, this approach turns abstract theory into a practical tool for improving societal well-being.
How OKRs Enhance Systems Thinking
OKRs, while not inherently systems-oriented, can reinforce a systemic mindset when designed thoughtfully. Unlike rigid KPIs that focus on parts, OKRs connect the dots:
1. Breaking Silos with Multi-Sectoral OKRs
OKRs are most effective when built collaboratively. Mapping value chains—inputs, processes, outputs—reveals leverage points. For example, a local council aiming to “Reduce homelessness to improve community health” might set KRs spanning housing (“Increase affordable units by 20%”), health (“Decrease mental health referrals by 15%”), and social services (“Boost employment support uptake from 40% to 70%”). Collaboration across sectors uncovers interdependencies, showing how delays in one area impact the whole.
2. Feedback Loops via Check-Ins
Systems thrive on feedback. Weekly OKR check-ins act as rapid loops, identifying unintended consequences—like a KR boosting efficiency but harming staff morale—and enabling timely adjustments. This mirrors Meadows’ “balancing loops,” helping stabilise systems and prevent escalation, such as budget overruns.
3. Long-Term Vision with Cascading Levels
Multi-year OKRs address systemic delays, while quarterly OKRs manage immediate actions. This ensures that short-term wins contribute to long-term equilibrium, avoiding “fixes that fail” like quick cuts that erode public trust.
4. Purpose-Driven Alignment
The “why” in Objectives fosters systemic awareness. For instance: “Enhance urban green spaces to boost mental health and biodiversity.” KRs measure holistic outcomes—e.g., “Increase park usage by 30%; Reduce GP visits for stress by 10%”—encouraging teams to see beyond their individual parts to the wider ecosystem.
Potential Pitfalls: When OKRs Ignore Systems
Without systems thinking, OKRs can backfire. Common pitfalls include:
Sub-Optimisation: A department achieves its OKRs while harming the wider system, e.g., cutting transport costs at the expense of healthcare access.
Delayed Feedback: Public sector changes often have long lags; quarterly OKRs may overlook slow-building issues like inequality.
Over-Measurement: Excessive KRs fragment focus, ignoring systemic outcomes such as collaboration and long-term societal benefit.
Mitigation strategies include value chain mapping before OKR creation, incorporating “quality KRs” to balance outcomes, and reviewing ripple effects during transitions.
Putting It into Practice: A UK Public Sector Example
Consider a local authority addressing air quality:
Objective: Improve air quality across the borough to enhance public health and economic vitality, fostering a sustainable community.
KR 1: Reduce average PM2.5 levels from 12 µg/m³ to 8 µg/m³ (environment-transport link).
KR 2: Decrease respiratory hospital admissions by 15% (health impact).
KR 3: Increase green commuting uptake from 40% to 60% (behavioural/economic loop).
Multi-sector teams (environment, transport, health) collaborate, using check-ins to adjust for feedback like traffic changes affecting local businesses, demonstrating the power of OKRs infused with systems thinking.
Conclusion: OKRs as a Systems Catalyst
Public services are ecosystems, not machines. When OKRs embrace systems thinking, they become catalysts for holistic change—aligning parts to the whole, revealing interconnections, and driving sustainable outcomes. As Peter Senge warns, “The unhealthiness of our world today is in direct proportion to our inability to see it as a whole.” By marrying OKRs with systems thinking, public sector leaders can create resilient organisations that truly serve society.
