A comparative study of performance management paradigms of OKRs and KPIs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As traditional KPIs struggle with short-term rigidity, organizations adopt OKRs for strategic agility, yet face implementation challenges including superficial goal alignment, employee stress from excessive transparency, and integration conflicts with existing metrics. Through literature analysis, this study reveals that OKRs' efficacy is undermined by ambiguous objectives, inadequate progress tracking, and cultural mismatches, while misaligned managerial support and hybrid tool misconceptions exacerbate operational friction. Critical organizational barriers—such as conflating OKRs' aspirational nature with KPIs' quantitative focus—hinder synergistic integration. The research proposes a three-pillar framework: differentiating roles (OKRs for vision-driven goals, KPIs for tactical benchmarks), establishing multi-level alignment mechanisms, and implementing dynamic feedback loops. Findings emphasize that context-driven integration, tailored to organizational maturity and cultural readiness, optimally balances innovation focus with performance accountability, ultimately enhancing adaptive competitiveness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".