OKR Review Deck

About this template

Sixteen slides for the end-of-quarter OKR review

Built for the session that scores the quarter’s objectives and drafts the next quarter’s in one sitting. The order is the point: scores go up first, the misses are diagnosed second, and only then does the draft appear, so new objectives get written in front of the evidence instead of from memory. The deck also takes a position, on slide 12 and again on slide 13, that an OKR score is not a performance rating. If your company does use it that way, that is the pair that will argue with you.

Eight agenda lines, five body pairs

Slide 2 runs scoring results, diagnosing the misses, next quarter’s draft, checking how we measure, kept apart from reviews, using the scores wrong and using them right, key metrics, trend analysis. The first five carry a divider and a body slide from slide 3 to slide 12, line 06 is the comparison on slide 13, and key metrics and trend analysis are slides 14 and 15. If your quarter has more objectives than fit, duplicate the slide 5 and 6 pair rather than crowding a body slide, and continue the SECTION numbering.

The five body slides

1. Scoring results: “4 objectives, average score 0.68”, “2 scored 1.0 – 3 scored below 0.3”, “Scoring rules exactly as agreed at quarter start”. Publishing the rules alongside the score is what stops the meeting turning into an argument about the scale.
2. Diagnosing the misses: only objectives under 0.5. The three causes given are a metric that changed no behavior, priorities that moved twice mid-quarter, and ownership split across two teams. Note that all three are design faults, not effort faults.
3. Next quarter’s draft: “Up to 3 objectives per team”, “A stated measurement for every key result”, “0.7 reaffirmed as the normal target”.
4. Checking how we measure: tally rules and dashboard locked, a named owner for the weekly update, definitions frozen for the quarter.
5. Kept apart from reviews: no penalty for a stretch goal, reviews on separate criteria, low scores published anyway.

The metric cards and the trend bars

Slide 14 lists “Average score” 0.68, “Objectives this quarter” 4, “Key results” 12 and “Below 0.3” 3, with the value on the right of each row. Three of the four repeat slide 4, so change them together. The fourth card counts failures on purpose; a card set with no bad number in it makes the diagnosis slide look invented. Slide 15 rises 52, 61, 68, 74 across Q1 to Q4 and reads as average score by quarter multiplied by 100, so if you put raw scores in, four bars under 1.0 will render as nothing. Clear the “Unit: index” label and the sample-values footnote before sending.

The comparison slide

Slide 13 puts “This is how it breaks” beside “Do this”. “Attainment fed straight into personal reviews” faces “Miss causes feed next quarter’s design”, “Only the easy objectives survive” faces “Stretch goals kept, scores published”, and “Criteria bent at quarter end to fit” faces “Scoring rules fixed at quarter start”. It is the slide to open when someone asks why a 0.68 is not a bad grade.

What goes wrong

• Scoring against criteria nobody wrote down at the start of the quarter, which turns the review into a negotiation.
• Carrying every missed objective forward untouched. If the metric changed no behavior, rewrite the key result rather than repeating it.
• Deleting the low scores before the slide goes up. The closing line is “The next objective matters more than the score” and it only holds if the low ones are visible.