Objectives and Key Results: one aspirational goal plus a few measurable outcomes that prove you're reaching it. The framework that ties daily work to strategy — if you keep KRs outcomes, not tasks.
▸ Try the interactive toolOKRs (Objectives and Key Results) are a goal-setting framework from Intel, popularised at Google. An OKR pairs one aspirational Objective — a qualitative statement of what you want to achieve — with two to four Key Results — specific, measurable, time-bound outcomes that tell you whether you're on track.
The single discipline that makes or breaks OKRs is keeping Key Results as outcomes, not tasks. “Ship the new onboarding flow” is a task — you can do it and still fail. “Raise first-week activation from 40% to 55%” is an outcome — it measures whether the work actually mattered. Teams that fill KRs with tasks turn OKRs into a glorified to-do list and lose the entire point.
Objective — qualitative, ambitious, memorable (the what).
Key Results — 2–4 measurable outcomes (the how we'll know).
Aim for ~70% achievement: hit 100% and the goals weren't ambitious enough.
OKRs exist to connect the abstract (strategy) to the concrete (this quarter's work) — but only if the Key Results measure outcomes the work is supposed to produce.
| The shortcut | What it costs | What it gives you instead |
|---|---|---|
| Tasks masquerading as goals | “Ship X” gets marked done even if X helped no one. | Outcome-based KRs measure whether the work changed anything. |
| Effort with no direction | Teams stay busy without a shared definition of success. | The Objective gives the quarter one clear, aspirational aim. |
| Sandbagging | Goals set low so they're easily hit. | The ~70% norm signals that goals should stretch, not guarantee. |
| Strategy that never reaches the team | Lofty strategy with no link to daily work. | OKRs translate strategic bets into measurable quarterly outcomes. |
A qualitative, memorable statement of what matters this quarter — e.g. “make the first-week experience something users rave about.” It should inspire, not measure.
Each KR is a measurable result that proves the Objective is being met. The test: could you complete a task and still miss the KR? If not, it's a task, not a result.
For every KR, ask “is this an outcome or a task?” “Launch,” “build,” “ship,” “deliver” are task verbs — rewrite them as the metric the task is meant to move.
Set KRs so ~70% achievement is a good quarter. If you're confident of 100%, raise them. Separate committed OKRs (must hit) from aspirational ones (stretch).
Track progress through the quarter; grade openly at the end. OKRs are directional commitments for learning, not a performance-review weapon — conflating them breeds sandbagging.
A team's Q-OKR listed Key Results like “launch the referral feature” and “ship the redesign.” They hit all of them — and the metrics they cared about didn't move. The OKRs had been a to-do list with a fancy name.
Rewritten, the same quarter's KRs read “increase referred signups from 5% to 15% of new users” and “raise activation from 40% to 55%.” Now shipping the features wasn't enough — they had to work. One did; one didn't, which was itself the most useful thing the OKRs taught them.
The deliverable is one Objective with 2–4 outcome-based Key Results — each phrased as a measurable change, not a deliverable.
| Task (avoid) | Outcome (use) | |
|---|---|---|
| KR verb | Ship, launch, build, deliver | Increase, reduce, raise, move |
| Example | “Launch new onboarding” | “Raise activation 40% → 55%” |
| Failure mode | Done but nothing changed | Measures whether it mattered |
| Target | 100% = on plan | ~70% = healthy ambition |
The OKR framework is simple; the discipline is hard. Almost every failed OKR rollout traces to one cause — Key Results written as tasks, which turns a strategic alignment tool into a decorated checklist.
Two norms protect OKRs from decay. First, KRs must be outcomes: if completing the work guarantees the KR, the KR isn't measuring impact. Second, OKRs must stay separate from performance reviews: the moment hitting them affects pay, people set them low and safe, which kills the ambition that makes them useful. A PM who guards both — outcomes only, and no comp linkage — keeps OKRs doing the one job they're good at: connecting what the team does to whether it mattered.
“Ship X” is the cardinal sin. Rewrite every KR as the metric the work should move.
Five objectives with four KRs each is a dashboard, not a focus. Keep it to a few.
Goals set for guaranteed 100% defeat the purpose. Aim for ~70% reach.
This guarantees sandbagging and politics. Keep them a directional, low-stakes commitment.
Top-level OKRs exist to move the North Star — the Objective serves it, the KRs measure progress toward it.
OKRs are how each strategic bet and roadmap item gets measured — the ladder's measurement layer.
Good KRs require instrumented metrics; Module 5's measurement work supplies the numbers.
Strategy-level and cascading OKRs across an organisation are covered in the strategy module.
Write an OKR for something you're working on. Then audit each Key Result: does it use a task verb (ship, build, launch)? If so, rewrite it as the metric that work is meant to move.
Check the ambition: are you confident of hitting 100%? If yes, the goal is too safe — raise it.
If every KR survives the “outcome or task?” test and none is a sure thing, you've written a real OKR — most first drafts fail both checks.
Ready to go deeper · Advanced OKR Design →