Rabobank used OGSM, portfolio governance, and agile practices. OKRs were introduced to increase focus and flexibility across domains. However, it was unclear which method should take precedence. We trained 55 Agile Coaches and supported them in developing a unified approach, enabling them to guide their teams through the new way of working.
Solution
Organizational Coaching
Client
Rabobank
Rabobank is an international financial services organization with a cooperative identity. Regulation, digitalization, sustainability, and internal change converge here. In such an environment, multiple steering mechanisms often accumulate. Each organizational layer has its own scope and questions, leading to a preference for different methods.
Within the bank, OGSM, portfolio governance, and agile practices operated simultaneously. OKRs were introduced to enable shorter steering and learning cycles. In theory, these frameworks complement each other.
In practice, four key questions arose that lacked consistent answers:
The tension did not stem from the methods themselves, but from how each domain interpreted them. Departments could follow the frameworks correctly yet still set different priorities.
This shifted the main question from "how do we roll out OKRs?" to "how do we integrate these parallel frameworks into a single, shared performance system?"
As Performance Management specialists, we often observe this pattern in large organizations. The issue is rarely a lack of methods. More often, there is no clear agreement on how the methods relate to one another or who is responsible for maintaining that alignment.
OGSM stands for Objectives, Goals, Strategies, Measures. It is a strategic framework that sets out, on a single page, where an organization wants to be in the coming years and which strategies it will follow to get there. OGSM operates on a 1- to 3-year horizon, which is why it changes very little.
OKRs stand for Objectives and Key Results. They also look 1 to 3 years ahead, but they add a short-cycle framework that sets out, per quarter, what change a team wants to achieve (Objectives) and how you measure whether that is working (Key Results). The added value of OKRs is that they translate long-term goals into quarterly goals and get updated several times a year.
Because one horizon is long-term and the other is short-cycle, the two do not exclude each other. In fact, together they make a stronger story. OGSM answers the question: "Where are we going over the next 1 to 3 years, and why?" OKRs add a second question: "What do we take on this quarter to get there?"
If both frameworks are implemented independently, they can conflict. OGSM is directed to the board, while OKRs are assigned to teams, with no mechanism to connect them. Middle management is left without the tools to bridge this gap.
OKR training teaches participants to write effective OKRs. However, integrating them with existing strategic frameworks requires additional support, so we combine training with practical organizational coaching.
Our approach had 4 parts that built on each other:
We intentionally positioned the coaches as the starting point, not merely as implementers but as co-designers of the new approach. This distinction was central to our method. Training implementers focus on the method, while training designers develop judgment, which sustains long-term change.
We also incorporated action learning through shared assignments and training sessions. Over the following 6 to 12 months, participants gradually applied their learning within their respective domains.
In the sessions, we worked on seven things:
This shifted participants’ focus from "how do we write good OKRs" to "how do we use goals to enhance team collaboration and learning."
The most significant change occurred among the coaches. They recognized that objectives primarily guide collective learning, rather than serving solely as measurement tools.
Five insights came out of that:
The coaches evolved from framework implementers to systems thinkers. Goals influence behavior, behavior shapes collaboration, and collaboration determines results. Focusing only on outcomes means steering the end of a process you have not intentionally designed.
Training is temporary, but a playbook remains accessible for ongoing reference.
The Playbook MVP set out how OGSM and OKRs relate to each other at Rabobank, who holds which role in the performance dialogue, and which cadence goes with it. That made the shared way of working transferable. New coaches and new teams do not have to negotiate all over again about what takes precedence.
For us, the most important outcome of the program is not the number of coaches trained, but the establishment of clear precedence. Coaches now share a unified Playbook, providing a common starting point and clear guidelines within their domains.
The next phase is about embedding it:
Performance maturity is not a project with a fixed end date. It is an ongoing way of working that requires continuous attention.
At Rabobank, coaches were the catalyst for lasting change. In most organizations, this role falls to middle management. You receive strategic goals and must translate them into team objectives. If this translation fails, your team is directly affected.
Research puts hard numbers on this. MIT Sloan Management Review surveyed 124 organizations and found that only 28 percent of executives and managers responsible for executing strategy could name three of their company's strategic priorities. And Harvard Business Review reported that only 9 percent of managers can always count on colleagues in other functions and units. Unclear priorities and poor coordination across silos are not an incident. They are the norm.
If you recognize this, you are in the same situation Rabobank was in before the program started:
The cause usually sits higher up in the organization, but you spot it first because you are the one who has to give an unusable goal to your team.
You may attempt to address this by increasing communication or planning, but these actions only treat the symptoms, not the root cause. Effective steering must come first; execution follows.
Collaboratively document your team’s goals for the quarter. For each goal, specify the originating strategic framework and the preceding decision. Goals lacking this context are not true goals, but tasks with deadlines.
Present this to senior management with a clear agenda: clarify which framework takes precedence when multiple apply simultaneously. This mirrors the question Rabobank coaches raised at the department level.
This approach can be applied even without a bank-wide rollout:
Interested in implementing this with your management team? We offer Organizational Coaching and Custom Workshops. We previously described similar programs at SSC-ICT (BZK) and Teltonika.
OGSM sets the strategic direction for one to three years: where do you want to go and which strategies will you use to get there? OKRs also work on a 1- to 3-year horizon, but on top of that, they set out, per quarter, the change you want to achieve and how you'll see whether it is working. OGSM sets the direction; OKRs are the translation.
Yes, but only if you make the link explicit. Every OKR should trace back to a strategy from the OGSM. Without that link, you get two separate systems that do not work together and can even work against each other.
The OGSM, because that is where the strategic choice sits. The OKR is the translation of it for this quarter. If they contradict each other, the translation is off. Set that order in advance, not during the conflict.
A performance dialogue is a recurring conversation about progress, obstacles, and adjustment. It differs from a progress report because the conversation focuses on what is not working and why. That asks for psychological safety. Otherwise, everyone reports that things are on track.
A playbook sets out how your organization works with goals: which frameworks exist, how they connect, who holds which role, and which cadence you work in. It makes the way of working transferable, so new teams and new managers do not have to start over.
In training, people learn how to write good OKRs. But in large organizations it is often also about the fit with existing steering frameworks, the division of roles, and the cadence. Those are things you pick up together on the floor, and that takes organizational coaching.
An organizational coach guides managers and teams in applying a way of working inside their own context. They observe behavior in practice, name patterns,s and help the organization take the lead itself. So it is not an advisory report, nor a temporary pair of hands.
Count on several quarters. The first cycle primarily yields lessons on wording and cadence. Only once the cadence holds and the performance dialogue is really about obstacles do you start to see an effect on collaboration and results.
Yes. Regulation sets out what you have to demonstrate, not how you steer. At Rabobank, OKRs and the existing governance run in parallel. The gain was in connecting the two, not in replacing one of them.
Last updated on September 9, 2026
Over the past 15 years, Renzo has focused on the intersection of strategy, execution, and management. He uses his knowledge of change management, OKRs, Obeya, and other agile frameworks to help organizations such as Rabobank, Stedin, VodafoneZiggo, Odido, and DPG Media get their middle management and leadership teams working together toward results.