Key Takeaways
- The goal-setting framework you use matters far less than using it well—most failures are execution problems, not framework problems
- OKRs are for ambitious change (what are we trying to accomplish?); KPIs are for ongoing health (are we maintaining baseline performance?)
- Good goals are few, specific, measurable, and owned—not comprehensive lists of everything the team does
- Goals without regular check-ins become forgotten documents; the review rhythm is part of the system
Every organization has some goal-setting system. OKRs, KPIs, SMART goals, quarterly objectives. The terminology varies, but the challenge is the same: translating high-level strategy into specific, measurable things that people actually work toward.
Most teams struggle with this translation. Goals become either too vague to be actionable or too comprehensive to be focused. They're set once, reviewed rarely, and forgotten until the next planning cycle.
The problem usually isn't the framework. It's how it's implemented. OKRs don't fail because they're a bad system. They fail because teams adopt the terminology without the discipline.
OKRs vs. KPIs: What's the Difference?
These terms get used interchangeably, but they're not the same thing.
KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) measure ongoing performance. They're the vital signs of your business or team. Revenue. Customer satisfaction. Response time. System uptime. Things you always want to know, that tell you whether normal operations are healthy.
KPIs don't change much. They're tracked continuously. They help you catch problems and maintain baseline performance.
OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) are for change. The Objective is what you're trying to accomplish—a qualitative description of a meaningful goal. The Key Results are how you'll know you accomplished it—specific, measurable outcomes.
KPI: Customer support response time (tracked ongoing, target: under 4 hours)
OKR: Objective: Become the fastest support team in our industry. Key Results: Average response time under 1 hour, 90% of tickets resolved in first contact, customer satisfaction above 95%.
The KPI maintains a standard. The OKR drives improvement toward a specific goal.
The Power (and Problem) of OKRs
OKRs became popular because they work. They create focus. They align teams around common objectives. They make progress visible.
But they're often implemented poorly. Common failures:
Too many: Teams set ten OKRs instead of three. When everything is a priority, nothing is. Good OKR practice is ruthlessly focused. If you have more than 3-5 objectives, you probably have a list of tasks, not strategic goals.
Too easy: OKRs are supposed to be ambitious. If you hit 100% of your OKRs every quarter, you're not stretching. The standard wisdom is that 70% achievement indicates appropriately ambitious goals.
Too vague: "Improve customer satisfaction" isn't a Key Result. It's a direction. Key Results need to be specific and measurable: "Increase NPS from 40 to 55."
What Makes a Good Goal
Whether you use OKRs, KPIs, or something else, good goals share characteristics:
Specific: Clear enough that different people would agree whether it's been achieved. "Improve onboarding" is not specific. "Reduce time-to-productivity for new hires from 90 days to 45 days" is.
Measurable: You can track progress with numbers. If you can't measure it, you can't know whether you're making progress.
Owned: Someone specific is responsible. Shared ownership often means no ownership. One person should be clearly accountable for each goal. When accountability gaps exist, identifying skill gaps early helps address issues before they become performance problems.
Few: Focus is the point. A short list of things that really matter beats a long list of things you probably should do. What are the 3-5 things that would make the biggest difference?
Cascading Goals
In theory, goals cascade. Company objectives break into team objectives, which break into individual objectives. Everyone's work connects to the broader strategy.
In practice, cascading often becomes a bureaucratic exercise. People write goals to satisfy the framework, not to guide their work.
The connection should be real. Team goals should clearly contribute to company goals. Individual goals should clearly contribute to team goals. If someone can't explain how their goal connects to the larger picture, something's wrong. This alignment requires a learning culture where continuous improvement is expected.
Ask each person on your team: How does your work contribute to our team goals? How do our team goals contribute to company priorities? If they can't answer, the goals aren't doing their job.
The Review Rhythm
Goals without regular review become aspirational documents that sit in a drawer.
Build a rhythm. Weekly check-ins on progress. Monthly reviews of whether goals are still the right goals. Quarterly retrospectives on what was accomplished and what was learned. Effective one-on-ones provide a natural venue for these conversations.
This doesn't need to be heavy. A brief weekly update on key result progress. A monthly discussion of whether anything needs to adjust. The discipline of regular attention keeps goals alive.
When Goals Need to Change
Circumstances change. What seemed important in January may be irrelevant by April. New opportunities emerge. Old assumptions prove wrong.
Don't cling to goals that no longer make sense. Part of goal discipline is regularly asking whether these are still the right goals. If the world has changed, your goals should change too.
This isn't permission to abandon goals when they get hard. There's a difference between a goal that's no longer relevant and a goal that's difficult. Be honest about which situation you're in.
Individual vs. Team Goals
Some goals are individual: this person will accomplish this thing. Some are collective: this team will accomplish this outcome.
Team goals require clarity about how individuals contribute. If the team goal is to increase revenue by 30%, what is each salesperson's target? How do support, marketing, and product contribute to that revenue goal?
Individual goals should roll up to something meaningful. If your team has goals and each individual has goals, but they're not connected, you have two parallel systems rather than one coherent one. Conversations about individual contributions require skill in giving feedback without triggering defensiveness.
The Real Purpose
Goal-setting frameworks exist to create alignment and focus. They help everyone understand what matters and coordinate their efforts toward it.
If your goal process doesn't create alignment and focus, it's not working—regardless of what framework you use. The form matters less than the function. A simple list of three priorities that everyone understands and works toward beats an elaborate OKR structure that generates compliance without commitment.
JoySuite helps teams stay focused on what matters. Access goals and context instantly so everyone knows priorities. Track progress without administrative overhead. Alignment that enables execution rather than bureaucracy that hinders it.
