OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) are a goal-setting framework pairing a qualitative objective with two to five measurable key results. Objectives describe what you want to achieve; key results define how you will know you got there. They are typically set quarterly and often deliberately ambitious.
OKRs explained
An objective is a short, memorable statement of intent — make onboarding something new starters talk about. Key results are the measurable outcomes that would prove it happened: 90% checklist completion within seven days, day-30 survey score above 4.2, first-90-day attrition below 15%.
The objective is directional and motivating. The key results are numerical and unambiguous. Neither works alone: objectives without key results are slogans, and key results without an objective are just metrics.
Why organisations use OKRs
OKRs are designed for alignment. When set transparently, everyone can see what their team is working toward and how it connects upward, which reduces the duplicated and contradictory effort common in growing organisations.
They also encourage ambition. In most OKR systems, achieving 100% of key results suggests the targets were set too conservatively; around 70% is often treated as a good result. That is a deliberate cultural choice, and it only works if missing a target is genuinely safe.
How to run OKRs
Set them quarterly. Limit each team to three objectives with three to five key results each — more than that and focus disappears.
Check in fortnightly on progress rather than waiting for quarter end. Score them at the close, discuss what the score means, then reset.
Keep OKRs separate from performance ratings and remuneration. The moment missing a stretch target affects someone's pay, they will stop setting stretch targets.
OKRs vs SMART goals
SMART goals are designed to be fully achieved and suit roles where consistency and completion are what matters. OKRs are often deliberately ambitious and suit environments where directional progress and stretch matter more.
For frontline workforces, OKRs frequently create more confusion than clarity. A bartender or an educator does not usually have quarterly objectives with confidence-scored key results — they have three things they are working on. SMART is generally the better fit, with OKRs reserved for leadership if used at all.
Common mistakes
- Tying OKRs to remuneration, which immediately kills ambitious target setting
- Setting too many, so none receive real attention
- Writing key results that are activities rather than outcomes
- Setting them and not looking again until the quarter closes
- Imposing OKRs on frontline roles the framework was never designed for
Frequently asked questions
A goal-setting framework pairing a qualitative objective with two to five measurable key results, usually set quarterly.
Three objectives with three to five key results each is a common ceiling. More than that and focus fragments.
In most systems around 70% attainment is considered good, because targets are deliberately ambitious. Consistently hitting 100% suggests they are set too low.
No. Linking ambitious targets to ratings or pay guarantees people will set conservative targets instead.
Usually not as designed. SMART goals are generally a better fit for shift-based roles, with OKRs reserved for leadership teams.