The OKR framework was developed at Intel by Andy Grove in the 1970s and popularised by John Doerr's deployment at Google in 1999, after which it spread rapidly through the technology industry and beyond. An OKR consists of two components: an Objective, which is a qualitative statement of something ambitious that the team or individual wants to achieve (e.g., "Make our onboarding experience world-class"), and three to five Key Results, which are quantitative, time-bound measurements that together indicate whether the Objective has been achieved (e.g., "Reduce time-to-productivity for new hires from 90 to 60 days," "Achieve 90% onboarding satisfaction score," "Complete onboarding documentation for all 14 roles"). A Key Result is not a task or activity - it is an outcome measurement.
OKRs operate on a quarterly cadence in most organisations, with company-level OKRs cascaded to team-level OKRs and in some organisations to individual OKRs. The quarterly cycle is short enough to remain relevant in a changing environment but long enough to drive meaningful progress. At the end of each quarter, OKRs are scored on a 0 to 1.0 scale. The conventional wisdom from Google is that consistently hitting 1.0 means the OKRs were not ambitious enough - a 0.6 to 0.7 score on a genuinely stretching OKR is considered success. This calibration is important: it signals that OKRs are intended to push beyond what is comfortably achievable, not to be a performance management stick.
OKRs are most effective when they are transparent and nested. Company-level OKRs, ideally set by leadership with broad input, should be visible to the entire organisation. Team OKRs should show their connection to company OKRs. This visibility creates alignment - everyone can see how their work connects to what the company is trying to achieve - and enables cross-team collaboration when multiple teams are contributing to the same company objective. The failure mode of many OKR implementations is that teams set OKRs in isolation, without reference to company priorities, resulting in a collection of individual goals that do not add up to the company's intended direction.
OKRs should generally be decoupled from compensation decisions, at least for the aspirational "moonshot" OKRs that are intended to be ambitious. Tying OKRs directly to salary or bonus incentivises conservative goal-setting - teams will set key results they are confident of achieving rather than outcomes they genuinely aspire to. The conventional approach is to use OKRs for goal alignment and development conversations, and a separate, more conservative performance assessment for compensation inputs. Some organisations maintain both a committed OKR (highly likely to be achieved) and an aspirational OKR (stretch target) for this reason.
Key Points: OKR
- Structure: One qualitative Objective (inspiring and directional) plus three to five quantitative, time-bound Key Results (outcome measurements).
- Cadence: Typically quarterly, with company OKRs cascading to team and sometimes individual level.
- Scoring: 0.6-0.7 on a genuinely ambitious OKR is considered success; consistently scoring 1.0 indicates insufficient ambition.
- Transparency: OKRs should be visible organisation-wide to create alignment and enable cross-team collaboration.
- Compensation: Aspirational OKRs should generally be decoupled from pay to prevent conservative goal-setting.
How OKR Works in Treegarden
OKR in Treegarden
Treegarden's Performance Management module includes an OKR management layer. Teams define company, team and individual OKRs with quarterly cycles and progress tracking. Key Result updates happen through regular check-in flows, keeping OKRs alive and visible rather than set-and-forgotten. Cascade visualisations show how individual OKRs connect to team and company objectives. At quarter end, scoring and retrospective notes feed into the broader performance review cycle.
Related HR Glossary Terms
Frequently Asked Questions About OKR
KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) measure ongoing business performance - they are metrics that the organisation tracks continuously, such as monthly revenue, customer satisfaction score or employee turnover rate. OKRs are time-boxed goals: they define where the team wants to move in the next quarter and how progress will be measured. A KPI might be "customer satisfaction score" tracked weekly; an OKR Key Result might be "increase customer satisfaction score from 7.2 to 8.5 by end of Q2." KPIs describe the state of the business; OKRs describe the intended direction of change.
The conventional guidance is three to five Objectives per quarter, with three to five Key Results per Objective. More than that and the system becomes unwieldy and dilutes focus - which is the opposite of the framework's purpose. Some fast-moving organisations use just two to three Objectives per quarter at all levels. The principle is that OKRs should represent the highest priorities, not a comprehensive task list. If a team has ten Objectives, none of them is truly a priority.
OKRs and performance reviews serve different purposes and should complement rather than duplicate each other. OKRs track goal achievement and team direction; performance reviews assess individual capability, behaviour and contribution. Many organisations use OKR progress as one input into performance conversations - especially for roles where goal achievement is a significant component of performance - but they do not equate them. Scoring 0.7 on an ambitious OKR may reflect excellent performance; scoring 1.0 on a conservative OKR may reflect underperformance relative to potential. The quality of the aspiration matters as much as the score.