KPIs and OKRs were designed for companies with stable structures and predictable markets. Justice-centered work is neither. Here's why we built something different — and how it works.
OKRs came from Intel. They were refined at Google. KPIs have roots in manufacturing and corporate management. These are smart frameworks — for environments where the org chart is stable, the market is predictable, and success shows up in predetermined numbers.
But embedded in these tools are assumptions that rarely hold for justice-centered nonprofits and philanthropies:
Justice-centered organizations operate differently. Funding landscapes shift. Community needs surge. Political environments reshape strategies in ways nobody forecast six months ago. This is what complexity scientists call a complex adaptive system — and measurement tools built for stable environments simply can't see what matters.
Roger Martin argues that OKRs have become a substitute for strategy rather than a complement to it. Organizations set audacious objectives, parse them into measurable key results — and then implicitly assume that setting the targets will cause their achievement. But desire is not a strategy. The critical question gets skipped: does the organization actually have the capability and structure to get there?
— Drawing from "Stop Letting OKRs Masquerade as Strategy" (2021)
The difference isn't about having metrics versus not having them. It's about which question the measurement system is designed to answer.
"Did we hit our numbers this quarter?"
Predetermined numerical targets. Task completion rates. Activity counts that may or may not connect to organizational purpose.
The structure is sound. Setting ambitious targets creates the conditions for achieving them. Past performance predicts future success.
Last quarter. Lagging indicators that report what already happened. By the time leadership sees the number, it's too late to course-correct.
"Are we creating the conditions for strategic progress — even as reality shifts around us?"
Strategic actions — both planned and currently underway — linked to organizational priorities. Decisions and how they evolve. Which groups are activating which strategies, in real time.
Whether organizational structure is enabling or blocking strategic progress. Where alignment exists and where it's stalling. What the organization is learning as it executes.
Right now. Forward-looking visibility into both planned and current work — captured as it happens, not reconstructed after the fact through separate data entry.
JOD replaces KPIs and OKRs with four interconnected elements — each purpose-built for the complexity of justice-centered work. Click to explore.
Strategic choices about where to focus organizational energy
An OKR objective is an aspirational statement — "Become the region's leading voice for housing justice." It points at an outcome but says nothing about whether the organization is actually structured to get there.
A JOD Priority is a strategic choice about where to focus organizational energy and how to activate strategy. It connects directly to organizational structure — every cross-functional group (Teams and Tables) creates work explicitly linked to specific priorities.
Priorities aren't set-it-and-forget-it targets. When strategy evolves — and in complex systems, it should — JOD captures that evolution: what changed, when, why, and who updated it. Justice-centered organizations build institutional knowledge instead of punishing adaptation.
Real-time strategic activity — both planned and underway
Key Results tell leadership what happened last quarter. By the time the number appears, it's too late to course-correct. And they can't explain why something is working or stalling.
JOD Actions are strategic work linked explicitly to Priorities. Each Action moves through clear states — Planning, Underway, On Hold, Complete — with timestamped progress notes showing what's happening at each stage and which groups own the work. This includes both planned work (what's coming) and current work (what's active right now) — giving leadership forward-looking visibility that lagging indicators can never provide.
Actions force a question KPIs never ask: Is this work actually activating strategy, or is it just keeping people busy?
Institutional knowledge that survives staff transitions
No traditional measurement framework tracks this — and it's one of the most critical things justice-centered organizations need.
In JOD, strategic decisions are captured as they happen: what was decided, by whom, why, and how it connects to organizational priorities. When a decision evolves — because the organization learned something new, because the environment shifted — that evolution is tracked too.
This means new staff can understand not just what was decided but why. Organizations stop repeating the same debates every six months. And boards and funders can see something a quarterly scorecard never reveals: organizational learning in action.
Structure designed around how the work actually happens
This is the piece traditional measurement misses entirely. KPIs and OKRs assume organizational structure works and ask whether targets are being hit. But the deeper question — Is the structure actually designed to execute the strategy? — goes unasked.
JOD organizes work through Teams (functional groups—people who share similar expertise or responsibilities) and Tables (cross-functional groups—people from different areas working together on strategic work that spans departments) that cut across traditional silos. Staff participate in multiple groups reflecting how interdisciplinary work actually flows. Each group's Actions connect directly to organizational Priorities.
This creates visibility into the alignment itself: Where is structure supporting strategy? Where is it blocking progress? Where does the organization need to adapt — and can it do so without creating chaos?
When structure starts supporting strategy instead of fighting it, decisions happen at the right level, information flows where it needs to go, and talented staff stop burning out.
Over twenty years ago, Sawhill and Williamson found in their landmark McKinsey research that most nonprofits tracked dollars raised and people served — but those metrics didn't measure real success in achieving organizational purpose. Organizations confused activity with progress, counting what was easy instead of what mattered.
What's changed is that we now understand why it keeps happening. It's not a failure of discipline. It's a structural problem. When a measurement system can't see the relationship between strategy and structure — when it can only report what happened, not whether the organization is designed to do what it's attempting — leadership is always looking in the rearview mirror.
JOD was built to give justice-centered organizations the windshield.
Hitting a number doesn't guarantee strategic success. An organization can increase partnerships from 15 to 25 and still be further from its purpose — if those partnerships aren't the right ones, or if the structure can't sustain them.
Here's what JOD reveals:
Is the organization's work actually activating its priorities — or just staying busy?
Is the structure enabling strategic progress — or quietly blocking it?
Are strategic choices being made based on what's being learned — or are the same debates repeating every six months?
Is the organization building on what it's learned — or losing it every time someone transitions out?
JOD was purpose-built for justice-centered organizations doing complex, adaptive work. We'd love to show you how Strategies, Priorities, Actions, and Decisions should look and feel in a just organization design.
Learn More About JustOrg DesignRoger Martin, "Stop Letting OKRs Masquerade as Strategy" (2021).
A.G. Lafley, "Differentiating Between Strategy, Plans and Results" — Leading to Win (2021).
John Sawhill & David Williamson, "Measuring What Matters in Nonprofits" — McKinsey Quarterly (2001).
Marilyn J. Darling, Heidi Sparkes Guber & Jillaine S. Smith, "A Whole Greater than Its Parts" — Fourth Quadrant Partners (2018).
Santa Fe Institute — Complex adaptive systems research.