 | This articlemay rely excessively on sourcestoo closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from beingverifiable andneutral. Please helpimprove it by replacing them with more appropriatecitations toreliable, independent sources.(December 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Objectives and key results (OKR, alternativelyOKRs) is agoal-setting framework used by individuals, teams, and organizations to define measurable goals and track their outcomes. The development of OKR is generally attributed toAndrew Grove who introduced the approach toIntel in the 1970s[1] and documented the framework in his 1983 bookHigh Output Management.
OKRs comprise anobjective (a significant, concrete, clearly defined goal) and 3–5key results (measurable success criteria used to track the achievement of that goal).[2]
Not only should objectives be significant, concrete, and clearly defined, they should also be inspirational for the individual, team, or organization that is working towards them.[3] Objectives can also be supported by initiatives, which are the plans and activities that help to move forward the key results and achieve the objective.[4]
Key results should be measurable, either on a0–100% scale or with any numerical value (e.g. count, dollar amount, or percentage) that can be used by planners and decision makers to determine whether those involved in working towards the key result have been successful. There should be no opportunity for "grey area" when defining a key result.[3]
Andrew Grove popularised the concept of OKR during his tenure atIntel in the 1970s.[5] He later documented OKR in his 1983 bookHigh Output Management.[6]
In 1975,John Doerr, at the time asalesperson working forIntel, attended a course within Intel taught by Grove where he was introduced to the theory of OKRs, then called "iMBOs" ("IntelManagement by Objectives").[7]
Doerr, who by 1999 was working forventure capital firmKleiner Perkins, introduced the idea of OKRs toGoogle.[8] The idea took hold and OKRs quickly became central to Google's culture as a "management methodology that helps to ensure that the company focuses efforts on the same important issues throughout the organization".[7]
Doerr published a book about the OKR framework titledMeasure What Matters in 2018. Grove's concept is explained byJohn Doerr in his book:[7]
The key result has to be measurable. But at the end you can look, and without any arguments: Did I do that or did I not do it? Yes? No? Simple. No judgments in it.
Larry Page, former CEO ofAlphabet and co-founder ofGoogle, credited OKRs within the foreword to Doerr's book:[7]
OKRs have helped lead us to 10× growth, many times over. They’ve helped make our crazily bold mission of 'organizing the world’s information' perhaps even achievable. They've kept me and the rest of the company on time and on track when it mattered the most.
Since becoming popular atGoogle, OKRs have found favor with several other similar largetech organizations[9] includingLinkedIn,[10]Twitter,[11]Uber,[12]Microsoft[13] andGitLab.[14]
Doerr recommends that an organization's target success rate for key results be 70%. A 70% success rate encourages competitive goal-making that is meant to stretch workers at low risk. If 100% of the key results are consistently being met, the key results should be reevaluated.[7] Considering this, OKRs are scored on a scale of 0.0 to 1.0, with 0.7 being the normal target for "aspirational" Key Results (where the aim is to make as much progress as possible), and 1.0 being the expected target for "committed" Key Results (where the outcome is the delivery of a product or feature, meeting a deadline, or a binary "done" or "not done" status).[15]
Organizations should be careful in crafting their OKRs such that they don't representbusiness as usual since those objectives are, by definition, not action-oriented and inspirational.[16] Words like "help" and "consult" should also be avoided as they tend to be used to describe vague activities rather than concrete, measurable outcomes.[17]
When coming up with key results, it is also recommended to measure leading indicators instead of lagging indicators. Leading indicators are readily measurable and provide organizations with an early warning when something isn't going right so they can course-correct. Conversely, lagging indicators are those metrics which can't be attributed to particular changes and so prevent organizations from course-correcting in time.[18]
OKRs were once typically set at the individual, team, and organization levels; however, most organizations no longer define OKRs for individual contributors as these OKRs tend to look like a task list and lead to conflating OKRs with performance reviews. The motivation for starting OKRs at the company, team, and individual levels was inspired by the 2014 Google Ventures Workshop Recording in which Rick Klau explains that OKRs exist at 3 levels. Subsequently, in November 2017, Klau clarified via twitter: “Skip individual OKRs altogether. Especially for younger, smaller companies. They’re redundant. Focus on company- and team-level OKRs.” Additionally, there is criticism that creating OKRs at multiple levels may cause too much of awaterfall approach, something that OKRs in many ways intend to avoid.[19]