When a big, strategic OKR spans multiple departments, it can be a growth accelerator - or a slow-moving headache.
Without clear ownership, these “shared” objectives often slip into the danger zone: endless meetings, finger-pointing, and results that arrive late (or never).
If you’ve ever heard “I thought they were handling that” during a check-in, you’ve felt the accountability gap.
These moments aren’t just frustrating - they can derail strategic priorities, burn valuable time, and create tension between teams that should be collaborating.
The longer ambiguity hangs in the air, the more momentum you lose.
This guide breaks down why these OKRs exist, why they’re tricky, and how to set them up so they deliver results instead of frustration.
Why Cross-Departmental OKRs Happen
Some of your highest-value objectives need more than one department to succeed.
Think product launches, retention turnarounds, or market expansions - these aren’t single-team efforts.
They’re powerful collaboration drivers because they:
- Force alignment across silos.
- Connect day-to-day work to company-wide outcomes.
- Build a shared sense of purpose that no single department could achieve alone.
In many scaling companies, these OKRs also serve as “glue” projects - the ones that prove whether departments can work in sync when it matters most.
But as we’ll see next, the same qualities that make them valuable also make them risky.
The Accountability Trap
If everyone owns it, no one owns it.
Without clearly defined responsibility, these OKRs often stall. Conflicting priorities, vague definitions of success, and diluted ownership lead to missed targets.
Example scenario:
A Key Result needs both Product and CX to deliver. Product hits 80% completion. CX hasn’t started. Each assumes the other will handle the rest.
The quarter ends with the KR stuck at 80%, and no one feels directly responsible for the miss.
Worse still, retros reveal that the warning signs were there weeks earlier - but without a single accountable owner, no one acted decisively to fix it.
This is where ownership models come in - they’re your safeguard against accountability drift, providing a clear structure for who drives the KR and how others contribute.
3 Models for Assigning Ownership
The choice of ownership model can make or break a shared OKR. Here are three proven approaches with extra depth so you can pick the right one for your situation.
Model 1 – Single KR Owner
One person or team is fully accountable for the KR, even if others contribute.
- When to use: A single function has the biggest lever for success.
- Why it works: Removes ambiguity. Contributors help, but the owner drives.
- Watch-out: Avoid “shadow owners” trying to steer without responsibility.
Pro tip: Pair this with contributor updates to maintain transparency.
Model 2 – Lead + Support
One primary owner, with other teams formally listed as contributors.
- When to use: Success requires coordinated effort, but someone must steer.
- Why it works: Keeps one clear driver while recognising dependencies.
- Watch-out: Define contributor deliverables early to avoid last-minute gaps.
Pro tip: Include contributor KRs within their own team OKRs to ensure commitment.
Model 3 – Rotating Ownership
Different teams lead in different phases of the KR.
- When to use: KR has distinct stages with different functional leads.
- Why it works: Ensures the right expertise drives each phase.
- Watch-out: Handoffs can create gaps - document progress before switching.
Pro tip: Hold a short handover session to review status, risks, and next steps.
Choosing an Ownership Model
Here’s a quick comparison of the main ownership models for cross-department OKRs and when to use them.
Choosing the right model early prevents confusion later - and makes it clear who’s on the hook at every stage.
Setting Up a Shared OKR for Success
Once ownership is set, you still need structure to keep momentum.
- Define the Objective clearly – Ensure all teams agree on the why. This prevents mid-cycle disagreements about what “success” really means.
- Assign KR owners upfront – One name per KR, visible to all. No exceptions.
- Map dependencies early – Identify handoffs, deadlines, and resource needs before the first week of execution.
- Set a check-in cadence – Weekly async updates keep everyone in the loop, while monthly live syncs address big blockers.
- Decide on conflict resolution – Pre-define how you’ll settle priority disputes so you’re not improvising under pressure.
When you combine clear ownership with structured follow-through, shared OKRs go from a potential liability to a source of alignment and momentum.
Real OKR Examples
Seeing how this plays out in real companies helps cement the principles.
Notice how every KR has a single accountable owner, even though the overall success depends on cross-team effort.
These structures ensure that, in weekly check-ins, it’s obvious who needs to act if progress stalls.
Final Thoughts
Cross-departmental OKRs can unite teams around bold goals - or leave you stuck in accountability limbo.
The difference is ownership clarity.
When every KR has a visible, named owner, ambiguity disappears. Contributors know their role, dependencies are managed proactively, and progress becomes a shared responsibility without becoming a shared burden.
Ownership models aren’t just admin - they’re the structural backbone that turns “big picture” goals into achievable outcomes. By choosing the right model, documenting it, and keeping it visible in your OKR tool, you give your teams the conditions they need to succeed.
Ultimately, shared OKRs are a test of organisational maturity. Get them right, and they create momentum, trust, and results that no single team could achieve alone. Get them wrong, and they become a slow leak of energy and focus.
