Measure What Matters: How Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation Rock the World with OKRs

“But I’d also watched too many start-ups struggle with growth and scale and getting the right things done. So I’d come to a philosophy, my mantra: Ideas are easy. Execution is everything.”

Doerr shares an insight into the challenges of entrepreneurship, emphasizing the critical role of execution in transforming ideas into tangible success. The contrast between the perceived simplicity of generating ideas and the complexity of executing them highlights the author’s practical, results-oriented philosophy.

“But the marriage of Google and OKRs was anything but random. It was a great impedance match, a seamless gene transcription into Google’s messenger RNA.”

In this excerpt, Doerr employs metaphors to convey the integration of objectives and key results (OKRs) into Google’s culture. The metaphor of an “impedance match,” drawn from the realm of electronics, suggests a perfect alignment. With the metaphor “a seamless gene transcription into Google’s messenger RNA,” Doerr draws an analogy between the integration of OKRs and the biological process of gene transcription. Here, messenger RNA, or mRNA, is a carrier of essential information within the cellular system. Overall, both metaphors suggests that Google’s adoption of OKRs was not a forced or disruptive process but rather a natural and essential part of the company’s functioning. This assertion emphasizes the conception of OKRs as a seamless and intrinsic component of successful operations.

“Many companies have a ‘rule of seven,’ limiting managers to a maximum of seven direct reports. In some cases, Google has flipped the rule to a minimum of seven. (When Jonathan Rosenberg headed Google’s product team, he had as many as twenty.) The higher the ratio of reports, the flatter the org chart—which means less top-down oversight, greater frontline autonomy, and more fertile soil for the next breakthrough. OKRs help make all of these good things possible.”

Doerr uses the example of Google’s inverted rule of seven to illustrate a counterintuitive approach to management. The mention of OKRs in the context of this organizational structure emphasizes the role of Doerr’s proposed framework in facilitating autonomy, aligning teams, and cultivating an environment conducive to breakthrough innovations.

“Drucker aimed to map out ‘a principle of management that will give full scope to individual strength and responsibility and at the same time give common direction of vision and effort, establish team work and harmonize the goals of the individual with the common weal.’ He discerned a basic truth of human nature: When people help choose a course of action, they are more likely to see it through.”

In this quote, Doerr encapsulates Peter Drucker’s distinct approach to management, setting it apart from perspectives like that of Henry Ford. Unlike an assembly line—driven, top-down management approach, in which management meticulously defines and oversees tasks—Drucker sought a more democratic and inclusive model. Drucker’s belief in involving individuals in decision-making contrasts with Ford’s more autocratic style, acknowledging the human need for autonomy and engagement in shaping the course of action within an organization.

“The OKR system, Grove wrote, ‘is meant to pace a person—to put a stopwatch in his own hand so he can gauge his own performance. It is not a legal document upon which to base a performance review.’ To encourage risk taking and prevent sandbagging, OKRs and bonuses are best kept separate.”

The use of the metaphorical expression “put a stopwatch in his own hand” conveys the idea that OKRs empower individuals to autonomously measure and manage their progress. Additionally, the term “legal document” highlights the contrast between the OKR system’s intended purposes—learning and improvement—and the often punitive and restrictive nature of formal performance reviews. Doerr’s argument here for fostering a culture that encourages risk-taking and discourages overly cautious or conservative behavior, specifically by keeping OKRs and bonuses distinct, ties into the theme of Alignment Versus Autonomy in Organizational Management.

“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen people walk out of meetings saying, ‘I’m going to conquer the world’…and three months later, nothing has happened. You get people whipped up with enthusiasm, but they don’t know what to do with it. In a crisis, you need a system that can drive transformation—quickly.”

This quote by Bill Davidow articulates a common challenge faced by organizations: the gap between enthusiastic declarations and tangible action. The phrase “conquer the world” conveys the magnitude of aspirations often expressed in meetings; the subsequent observation of “three months later, nothing has happened” underscores the need for a systematic approach to transform enthusiasm into meaningful outcomes. The use of the words “whipped up” suggests a temporary and possibly unsustainable surge of motivation, emphasizing the transient nature of unfocused enthusiasm. By introducing the concept of a system capable of driving transformation quickly, Doerr underscores the necessity for a structured and goal-oriented approach, which, in the context of the book, aligns with the principles of OKRs.

“At Andy Grove’s level, or even my level, you couldn’t know all the mechanics of how the battle should be won. A lot of this stuff has to flow uphill. You can tell people to clean up a mess, but should you be telling them which broom to use?”

This passage by Bill Davidow reflects on the challenges of balancing autonomy with alignment, using the metaphor of cleaning up a mess to convey the complexities of organizational management. The phrase “you couldn’t know all the mechanics of how the battle should be won” highlights the inherent limitations of leadership, suggesting that leaders may not have granular knowledge of every detail or process. The analogy of cleaning up a mess adds a tangible and relatable dimension, emphasizing with humor the need for delegation and trust in the capabilities of the team. The question, “[S]hould you be telling them which broom to use?” raises a rhetorical query about the appropriate level of involvement in decision-making, suggesting that effective leadership involves empowering individuals to make choices within their domain of expertise.

“In other words: Key results are the levers you pull, the marks you hit to achieve the goal. If an objective is well framed, three to five KRs will usually be adequate to reach it. Too many can dilute focus and obscure progress. Besides, each key result should be a challenge in its own right. If you’re certain you’re going to nail it, you’re probably not pushing hard enough.”

Doerr elucidates the role of key results within the OKR framework, employing metaphors to convey their significance. Describing key results as “the levers you pull” and “the marks you hit to achieve the goal” employs imagery that simplifies the concept, making it accessible and actionable. The metaphor of pulling levers implies a strategic and intentional approach to achieving objectives, suggesting that each key result is a deliberate, straightforward, almost mechanical action. Additionally, the statement “each key result should be a challenge in its own right” emphasizes the notion that key results should be ambitious and not easily attainable, reinforcing the overarching theme in the book that challenging goals drive higher performance.

“The more ambitious the OKR, the greater the risk of overlooking a vital criterion. To safeguard quality while pushing for quantitative deliverables, one solution is to pair key results—to measure ‘both effect and counter-effect,’ as Grove wrote in High Output Management. When key results focus on output, Grove noted: ‘[T]heir paired counterparts should stress the quality of [the] work.’”

Doerr explores the nuanced relationship between ambition in OKRs and the potential risk of neglecting important criteria, citing Andy Grove’s insights. The phrase “the greater the risk of overlooking a vital criterion” introduces a note of caution, emphasizing the importance of balancing ambition with a thorough consideration of critical factors. Doerr draws on Grove’s wisdom to propose a solution, advocating for the pairing of key results to measure both the intended effect and its counter-effect. This approach reflects a sophisticated understanding of goal setting, acknowledging that a singular focus on quantitative deliverables may compromise quality.

“As Steve Jobs understood, ‘Innovation means saying no to one thousand things.’ In most cases, the ideal number of quarterly OKRs will range between three and five. It may be tempting to usher more objectives inside the velvet rope, but it’s generally a mistake. Too many objectives can blur our focus on what counts, or distract us into chasing the next shiny thing.”

This quote emphasizes the importance of focus and selectivity in goal setting. It underscores the idea that true innovation requires a disciplined and discerning approach. Doerr advises against the temptation to set too many objectives, employing the metaphor of objectives being ushered “inside the velvet rope,” an image suggesting a boundary or limit.

“Meritocracy flourishes in sunlight. When people write down ‘This is what I’m working on,’ it’s easier to see where the best ideas are coming from. Soon it’s apparent that the individuals moving up are the ones doing what the company most values. Organizational poisons—suspicion, sandbagging, politicking—lose their toxic power.”

This quote underscores the theme of The Importance of Transparency in Organizations and its positive impact on organizational dynamics. The metaphor, “Meritocracy flourishes in sunlight” implies that transparency is akin to light and clarity, which together allow merit-based principles to thrive. The act of individuals writing down and openly sharing what they’re working on is presented as a catalyst for visibility, a way to see with certainty where innovative and valuable ideas originate. Overall, the quote advocates for a culture of openness as a means to eliminate destructive organizational practices.

“OKRs are not islands. To the contrary, they create networks—vertical, horizontal, diagonal—to connect an organization’s most vital work.”

The metaphorical language of “OKRs are not islands” suggests that OKRs are interconnected and create a network within an organization. The phrase “vertical, horizontal, diagonal” emphasizes the multidimensional nature of these connections, indicating that OKRs span various levels and directions within the organizational structure. The use of the word “networks” conveys a sense of dynamic and interwoven relationships. Taken together, the resulting concept emphasizes collaboration and coordination, depicting OKRs as a cohesive framework that aligns diverse efforts and initiatives.

“All of its 82,000 contributors had dutifully recorded their annual objectives in Microsoft Word files! A move to quarterly OKRs would have generated 328,000 files per year. They’d all be public, in theory, but who would have the patience to search out connections or alignment? If you share a goal that nobody sees, is the system truly transparent?”

The rhetorical question, “If you share a goal that nobody sees, is the system truly transparent?” invites reflection on the essence of transparency. It suggests that transparency is not just about making information available but ensuring that it is easily accessible and visible to relevant stakeholders. This statement underscores the importance of effective communication and visibility in the successful implementation of goal-setting systems like OKRs.

“In evaluating OKR performance, objective data is enhanced by the goal setter’s thoughtful, subjective judgment. For any given goal in a given quarter, there may be extenuating circumstances. A weak showing by the numbers might hide a strong effort; a strong one could be artificially inflated.

This quote acknowledges the complexity of evaluating performance. The use of “extenuating circumstances” suggests that external factors could influence the outcome of a goal, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding beyond objective data. This passage highlights the author’s recognition of the importance of subjective judgment and contextual understanding in the evaluation process, emphasizing a balanced and comprehensive approach to assessing performance.

“OKRs are inherently action oriented. But when action is relentless and unceasing, it can be a hamster wheel of grim striving. In my view, the key to satisfaction is to set aggressive goals, achieve most of them, pause to reflect on the achievement, and then repeat the cycle.”

The metaphorical expression “a hamster wheel of grim striving” vividly portrays the potential downside of relentless and unceasing action. Doerr suggests instead a cyclical and reflective approach to goal setting. This quote highlights his understanding of the balance between ambitious action and the need for periodic reflection, emphasizing a holistic approach to achieving satisfaction and success. The Continuous Nature of Effective Goal Setting, as a theme, incorporates this perspective: though goals must be evaluated and adjusted constantly, reflection and celebration should be part of that process.

“The higher the stakes, the more important it is to track progress—to flag looming problems, double back from dead ends, and modify goals on the run.”

This quote encapsulates a fundamental principle of effective goal management. The author emphasizes the significance of continuous monitoring and adjustment, particularly in high-stakes situations. Phrases like “to flag looming problems” and “modify goals on the run” conveys the need for adaptability and agility in response to challenges. This call for flexibility underscores the dynamic and proactive nature of goal tracking, portraying it as an essential tool for navigating complex and critical scenarios.

“He used a metaphor called the Big Rocks Theory, which was popularized by Stephen Covey. Say you have some rocks, and a bunch of pebbles, and some sand, and your goal is to fit as much of everything as you can into a wide-mouth, one-gallon jar. If you start with the sand, and then the pebbles, the jar will run out of room for all the rocks. But when you start with the rocks, add the pebbles, and save the sand for last, the sand fills the spaces between the rocks—everything fits. In other words, the most important things need to get done first or they won’t get done at all.”

This quote from Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube, conveys a valuable lesson about prioritization and time management. She shares a metaphor that illustrates the concept of tackling significant tasks first before addressing smaller, less critical ones. The analogy of fitting rocks, pebbles, and sand into a jar vividly communicates the idea that by focusing first on essential, high-priority tasks (the “rocks”), one ensures that there is room for less critical activities (the “pebbles” and “sand”). This visual emphasizes strategic planning and prioritization, encouraging readers to prioritize major goals to maximize efficiency and goal achievement.

“Aspirational goals can prompt a reset for the entire organization. In our case, it inspired infrastructure initiatives throughout YouTube. People started saying, ‘If we’re going to be that big, maybe we need to redesign our architecture. Maybe we need to redesign our storage.’ It became a prod for the whole company to better prepare for the future. Everybody started thinking bigger.”

This quote from Susan Wojcicki explores the transformative power of aspirational goals within an organization, using YouTube as a case study. The language employed, such as “prompt a reset” and “prod for the whole company,” conveys the significant impact that setting ambitious objectives can have on the organizational mindset. The language also emphasizes Doerr’s argument that ambitious targets can motivate employees, suggesting that such goals not only guide immediate actions but also trigger a reevaluation and improvement of the organization’s overall strategies and capabilities.

“To reach goals almost beyond imagining, people must be managed at a higher level. Our systems for workplace communication cry out for an upgrade. Just as quarterly OKRs have rendered pro forma annual goals obsolete, we need an equivalent tool to revolutionize outdated performance management systems. In short, we need a new HR model for the new world of work.”

Doerr advocates for a paradigm shift in workplace management to match the audacious goals set using the OKR framework. The phrases “goals almost beyond imagining” and “managed at a higher level” suggest the need for a more advanced and forward-thinking approach to human resources and performance management. This passage highlights Doerr’s belief in the interconnectedness of goal-setting methodologies and broader organizational management structures, setting up Doerr’s argument that CFRs can effectively complement OKRs.

“Here is the most underestimated component of CFRs, and the least well understood. Gone are the days when gold watches were coveted awards for simple longevity. Modern recognition is performance-based and horizontal. It crowdsources meritocracy.”

The statement, “Gone are the days when gold watches were coveted awards for simple longevity,” highlights the departure from traditional, tenure-based rewards toward a more contemporary, performance-driven approach. The mention of “performance-based and horizontal” recognition suggests that modern acknowledgment prioritizes individual achievements and tends to be distributed across various levels within the organization rather than being restricted to vertical hierarchies. The term “crowdsources meritocracy” implies that recognition is also now sourced from the collective judgment of peers, emphasizing a more democratic and inclusive approach to acknowledging merit. Overall, this statement illuminates the transformative impact of CFRs, aligning the alternative framework with contemporary performance metrics and a more egalitarian organizational culture.

“Culture, as the saying goes, eats strategy for breakfast. It’s our stake in the ground; it’s what makes meaning of work. Leaders are rightly obsessed with culture.”

The aphorism “[c]ulture […] eats strategy for breakfast” suggests that, regardless of how well conceived a strategic plan may be, the influence and impact of culture supersede it. By stating that culture “is our stake in the ground,” Doerr emphasizes the foundational role of culture in defining an organization’s identity and purpose. The assertion that culture “is what makes meaning of work” implies that a company’s prevailing cultural values and norms provide a context that imbues work with significance for individuals within the organization. This assertion thus reveals Doerr’s belief in the foundational role of culture and his acknowledgment that effective leadership involves a keen focus on cultivating and sustaining a meaningful and purpose-driven organizational ethos.

“An OKR culture is an accountable culture. You don’t push toward a goal just because the boss gave you an order. You do it because every OKR is transparently important to the company, and to the colleagues who count on you. Nobody wants to be seen as the one holding back the team. Everybody takes pride in moving progress forward. It’s a social contract, but a self-governed one.”

Doerr contends that employees don’t merely pursue goals because of hierarchical directives. The statement “Nobody wants to be seen as the one holding back the team” underscores the social dynamics at play within an OKR culture, where collective progress becomes a shared responsibility. By describing it as a “self-governed” social contract, Doerr suggests that within this culture, individuals willingly commit to driving progress forward, reflecting the intrinsic motivation and pride associated with contributing to shared objectives.

“When an organization isn’t yet ready for total openness and accountability, culture work may be needed before OKRs are implemented. As Jim Collins observes in Good to Great, first you need to get ‘the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats.’ Only then do you turn the wheel and step on the gas.”

The bus metaphor here emphasizes the critical importance of aligning the right personnel with the right roles before initiating organizational change, such as the adoption of OKRs. By quoting this metaphor, Doerr underlines the significance of organizational readiness and strategic alignment as prerequisites for the effective deployment of OKRs.