Forget the framework used for a moment, the science of goal setting is very clear about why setting hard goals matters. Hard goals:
This offers clear advantages over goals that are easy or easier. They have been shown to offer little in the way of value.
Frameworks like BSC, SMART and KPIs offer no clear guidance on how to set goal targets and define success. So when OKRs came along and offered very clear guidance on how targets should be set and success measured, you suddenly had science-backed goal setting best-practices baked in.
If Objectives are the call to arms and rally cry. How you measure success and how ambitious you dare to be is defined in the Key Results and their targets. These need to be thought through as you’re going to be asked about them every week for a quarter so they need to be relevant and matter.
Once you have decided, there are 3 types of target you can set at a Key Result level as part of OKR.
The business-as-usual target one that you’d expect to hit 100%. Anything other than 100% would be considered failure. Given when we went through earlier about goals being hard, these are the exception not the rule. However, some coaches feel that in the early days of OKRs having targets reached makes adoption easier and not achieving 100% less demoralising. Another view of this would be that if you’ve educated your teams well enough, graded OKRs well, and not achieving 100% is safe, low-balling targets is not a problem and not useful.
Part of the OKR planning process is to agree what a hard stretch target would be. Hard goals are sometimes called a stretch or committed goal as well. Achieving 100% of the target would be amazing and 70% would be good.Rs having targets reached makes adoption easier and not achieving 100% less demoralising. Another view of this would be that if you’ve educated your teams well enough, graded OKRs well, and not achieving 100% is safe, low-balling targets is not a problem and not useful. an
The engine room of OKR are conversation and debates around what your Objective should be, what you should measure, and what ‘good’ and ‘amazing’ would look like.
It’s been shown that what are considered ‘visionary’ companies often also set highly aspirational, Big Hairy Audacious Goals, or Moonshots. They are set to inspire greatness, new ways of doing things, new approaches to problems and genuine innovation. You need to choose when and where to set them obviously, but their value is clear. Calibrating the success of a moon-shot is harder but 30% to 100% for many would be seen as great result.
The score or grade of your Objective comes from the difficulty of your Key Results by way of a simple average across all of the Key Results. When planning your OKRs, one way of viewing the average score is your level of ambition.
Objective – Average Grade – 0.56
When you’re grading your achievement at the end of your planning period, your score is a measure of your achievement relative to that ambition. This is why calibrating what success looks like is so important and 100% is unlikely to be the answer. This is unlike the type of goals most people have set before as KPIs and SMART both don’t have this concept as a central pillar.
If you get to the end of a quarter and you’ve got a 95% score one concern might be that you’re not being ambitious enough. Google as an example would see the right balance of ambition and success being a final grade of 0.6 to 0.7 or 60% to 70%. And of course scoring lower might mean that your teams are not achieving enough. It’s a fine balancing act that again highlights the importance of good planning conversations.
Remember that OKRs are a commitment to an aspirational future state. The path to achieve the outcomes you want is not known.
Teams are going to work hard to achieve OKRs because they feel connected to them, they have clarity on what needs to be achieved and what can put down or just maintained to get this commitment moving.
With OKRs you can be ambitious and feel comfortable celebrating if you come up short as effort and learning are also a cause for celebration.
ZOKRI allows you to grade your OKRs using BAU, Hard and Moon Shots, and like Google even apply weights to individual Key Results.
The answer depends on the answer to the question: how would failure to hit a target be treated in your company?
Psychologically Safe teams have the ability to imagine what amazing would look like and go for it. They would do their best, communicate openly about progress and treat failure as a learning experience.
For teams where Psychological Safety is high, achieving 60% of a hard goal might not only be an achievement, but what the ambition stimulated from increased focus and improved teamwork and collaboration might be even more important. It created innovation, learning, trust and friendship bonds.
If you need 100% success all of the time you need to turn your back on innovation and new ways of thinking. Innovation is a result of risk, effort and frequent failure.
Let us be pragmatic for a moment. Perhaps you’re not ready for ambition. That can come later because right now it’s too scary to not hit targets and the consequences for failure are grave. Changing culture and rolling-out OKRs at the same time is a big ask, so perhaps it’s best to eat the elephant one mouthful at a time.
OKRs are still a useful framework for achieving clarity on what goals matters most and creating transparency and alignment. You just need to score your targets at a level where targets are not much of a stretch and 100% is the expectation. After all, you don’t want to cause undue stress and anxiety by trying to get the best of both worlds – hard stretch goals that must be hit 100% all of the time.
The opportunity cost low levels of stretch in an unsafe environment will come in the form of innovation and new ways of thinking. Few new ideas for improvements in systems, processes, tactics, methods and all of the other levers on performance.
Either way, ZOKRI allows you to calibrate and communicate success levels that reflect where you are and who you are right now, with one eye on who you want to become.