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

The introduction of OKRs at Google, as detailed in Chapter 1, highlights the critical role of goal setting in shaping the trajectory of a company. Author John Doerr’s investment in Google and subsequent collaboration with founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin underscore the notion that even visionary and entrepreneurial leaders need a systematic approach to management. Here, Doerr establishes that OKRs serve as a catalyst for transforming ambitious visions into actionable and measurable objectives, providing a structured framework for organizational success.

Chapter 1 introduces the theme of Alignment Versus Autonomy in Organizational Management with Doerr’s discussion of how strong companies find ways of balancing these two forces. Doerr emphasizes that organization-wide alignment, an achievement beyond just encouraging employees to set goals, is important for company success. Companies need a system that sets priorities that unite the whole organization:

Goal setting isn’t bulletproof: ‘When people have conflicting priorities or unclear, meaningless, or arbitrarily shifting goals, they become frustrated, cynical, and demotivated.’ An effective goal management system—an OKR system—links goals to a team’s broader mission (10).

The OKR system, Doerr argues, is an effective tool to achieve that alignment. At the same time, he notes that organizations need to complement alignment with autonomy, which ties into company culture. The companies that are most successful at implementing the OKR system, for example, also have a culture that fosters transparency, autonomy, and experimentation—all of which may seem to run counter to alignment. In other words, the OKR system needs an appropriate culture to thrive, that is, alignment will serve an organization best when implemented within a culture that fosters autonomy.

In helping to explain how the OKR system allows these two seemingly contradictory forces to serve each other, Doerr exalts Google as a prime example: “[P]erhaps no organization, not even Intel, has scaled OKRs more effectively than Google” (13). Doerr contends that one of the main reasons Google has succeeded in implementing OKRs is the fact that the company avoids micromanaging its employees, instead opting to give workers a high degree of autonomy. Google does this despite this approach going against the grain of traditional management advice:

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 […] 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 (14).

In other words, Google uses OKRs to coordinate goals throughout the organization while still fostering autonomy through its innovation-friendly culture and flatter organizational structure. Doerr argues that this balance of alignment and autonomy is “a perfect fit” (11) for OKRs, and that, in turn, OKRs help Google to maintain this balance.

Another reason Doerr believes Google’s culture is perfectly suited to OKRs is because Google values transparency: OKRs “promised transparency for a team that defaulted to open—open source, open systems, open web” (11). The Importance of Transparency in Organizations is another recurring theme that Doerr explores throughout the book. Transparency, Doerr argues, fosters both alignment and autonomy; transparent goals are more easily aligned throughout the organization, and workers who transparently share their goals are more empowered to say no to tasks that fall outside of their stated objectives and key results.

Doerr contends that OKRs are suitable to address the challenges of modern companies. Chapter 2 delves into the historical roots of OKRs and their evolution under the guidance of Andy Grove at Intel. Doerr situates OKRs as a response to the limitations of previous management styles, highlighting the shift from authoritarian approaches to more trust-based methodologies. OKRs, born out of the knowledge work context at Intel, represent a flexible and agile goal-setting system that aligns with the fast-paced nature of the technology industry.

Doerr’s overview of the precursors to OKRs touches again on the theme of Alignment Versus Autonomy in Organizational Management. Historically, alignment was prioritized over autonomy. Henry Ford and Frederick Winslow Taylor valued efficiency, coordination, and top-down obedience:

They held that the most efficient and profitable organization was authoritarian. Scientific management, Taylor wrote, consists of ‘knowing exactly what you want men to do and then see that they do it in the best and cheapest way.’ The results, as Grove noted, were ‘crisp and hierarchical: there were those who gave orders and those who took orders and executed them without question’ (24).

But, with the introduction of Peter Drucker’s MBO philosophy, organizational management theory shifted toward greater autonomy; Drucker “discerned a basic truth of human nature: When people help choose a course of action, they are more likely to see it through” (25). As such, Drucker “urged that subordinates be consulted on company goals” (25). This shift tipped the scales toward a more balanced approach to the tension between organizational alignment and employee autonomy. However, Doerr argues that Drucker’s philosophy did not go far enough:

At many companies, goals were centrally planned and sluggishly trickled down the hierarchy. At others, they became stagnant for lack of frequent updating; or trapped and obscured in silos; or reduced to key performance indicators (KPIs), numbers without soul or context. Most deadly of all, MBOs were commonly tied to salaries and bonuses. If risk taking might be penalized, why chance it? (25).

OKRs, Doerr implies, improve upon the MBO system by avoiding the stagnancy of overly bureaucratic alignment and introducing even greater autonomy into goal setting.

Intel’s “Operation Crush” also serves as an example of balancing alignment versus autonomy in managing an organization, backing up Doerr’s claims with an example of real-world success. Intel achieved its ambitious goals through a combination of top-down goal setting and bottom-up alignment—in other words, a combination of organizational alignment and employee autonomy. Grove and Davidow write that “Crush was a thoroughly cascaded set of OKRs, heavily driven from the top, but with input from below” (44). The executives acknowledge that even during a time of highly coordinated, company-wide organization, leaders at the top should not presume to dictate the actions of frontline employees on a granular level: “At Andy Grove’s level, or even my level, you couldn’t know all the mechanics of how the battle should be won. […] You can tell people to clean up a mess, but should you be telling them which broom to use?” (44). Grove and Davidow use this metaphor, grounded in a common household scenario, to dismiss micromanagement in simple, relatable language. Their language implies that that they did not desire to infantilize employees, instead trusting them to act like adults and fix their mistakes when needed. The executives explain further: “When top management was saying ‘We’ve got to crush Motorola!’ somebody at the bottom might have said ‘Our benchmarks are lousy; I think I’ll write some better benchmarks.’ That was how we worked” (44-45). While the company’s top-level objectives were broad, ambitious, and invigorating, the leaders trusted their employees to know how to reach these objectives, giving their workers enough autonomy to determine the way forward.

The book presents OKRs as powerful tools that can assist companies during times of crisis. Doerr, as well as the excerpted writing in Chapter 3, characterizes “Operation Crush” as an incredibly urgent time, adopting the language of war: The conflict is portrayed as a “fight for survival,” a “war,” and the “rallying cry” to “exhort the troops” included calls to “kill” Motorola (35-36). In the end, Doerr writes, Intel “routed the enemy and won a resounding victory” (36). The case study of “Operation Crush” thus provides a demonstration of the impact of OKRs on organizational alignment and success that is not only tangible but also compelling, given the suggestion that it took place on the scale of wartime mobilization. Intel’s dual approach of top-down goal setting and bottom-up alignment fostered a sense of collective responsibility and engagement. The success of Operation Crush reinforces the idea that OKRs can be a powerful tool for driving focus and collaboration, particularly in high-stakes and competitive environments.

Overall, the first three chapters collectively emphasize that OKRs are not just a theoretical framework but a practical and adaptable tool for organizational success. Here, OKRs emerge as a transformative force that empowers companies to set, measure, and achieve strategic objectives in a dynamic business landscape.