HR-Glossar
OKR (objectives and key results)
How OKR is built, why decoupling it from pay is part of the concept and where its introduction usually fails in practice.
1. What is OKR (objectives and key results)?
OKR stands for objectives and key results – a goal system connecting qualitative objectives with measurable results. An objective describes what is to be achieved, in one sentence and deliberately without a number. The associated key results are a few measurable figures which show whether the objective has been reached.
Work runs in short cycles, typically a quarter, with a regular interim review and a retrospective at the end. The objectives are as a rule visible across the organisation – vertically and horizontally.
The most important and most frequently disregarded point of the design: OKR works without a link to pay. Separating it from remuneration is not a detail but a precondition. Only where missing an objective costs nothing are objectives set ambitiously – and that is exactly what the method aims at.
On the sources: the formative accounts come from Andy Grove and John Doerr and exist as books. There are no freely accessible primary sources; the sources named below are secondary literature.
2. Origin and development
OKR grew out of the management practice of a semiconductor company and was later spread through the software industry. Its root is the same as that of the target agreement: the idea of steering through results rather than activities.
3. Core principles and how it works
The objective qualitative, the key results measurable
The objective says in one sentence what is to be achieved – without a number. The key results are a few figures from which achievement can be read.
Short cycles
A quarter is usual, with an interim review and a retrospective. The short rhythm is the remedy against objectives going stale.
No link to pay
That is a precondition, not a matter of taste. Where money hangs on it, objectives are set cautiously – and that destroys the purpose.
Ambitious rather than safe
OKR aims at objectives whose full achievement is not expected. Consistently reaching all key results is a sign that the objectives were set too low.
Visibility across the organisation
Objectives can be seen, they are not confidential. That replaces part of the coordination with transparency.
Few objectives
Few objectives with few key results. An extensive portfolio of goals is not an OKR system but a task list.
A complement, not a replacement for running work
OKR reflects change initiatives, not day-to-day operations. Mapping the whole business into key results overloads the method.
4. Who is OKR (objectives and key results) relevant for?
- Organisations in change – OKR suits initiatives, not routine.
- Product and engineering functions – it is most widespread there.
- Managers – their role shifts from allocating to prioritising.
- Self-organising teams – OKR presupposes room to decide.
- Organisational development – introducing it is a change initiative, not a change of tool.
5. How it differs from related terms
- OKR and the target agreement – a target agreement is frequently pay-relevant and annual; OKR is deliberately pay-free and short-cycle. The difference is fundamental, not one of degree. - OKR and a system of measures – measures observe running operations, OKR steers change. A figure that is monitored anyway is not a key result. - OKR and a project plan – the project plan describes tasks and dates, OKR the intended result. - OKR and performance appraisal – appraisal assesses people, OKR assesses achievement of objectives. Mixing them is the most common misapplication. - OKR and agility – OKR is not an agile framework like Scrum or Kanban, but it is frequently combined with them.
6. Variants and adaptations
Common variants:
- Company OKRs – a few overarching objectives as a frame of orientation. - Team OKRs – derived, but formulated by the team itself; that is the difference from cascading. - Committed and aspirational – some organisations distinguish binding from ambitious objectives. That resolves part of the tension but complicates the method. - Fortnightly interim review – short check-ins instead of an assessment at the end. - With a link to pay – widespread, but contrary to the concept. The result is a target agreement under another name.
7. Advantages and challenges
Advantages
- Short cycles keep objectives current, even in changing environments
- Separation from pay allows ambitious objectives without negotiating tactics
- Visible objectives replace part of the coordination with transparency
- Limiting to a few objectives forces prioritisation
- Regular retrospectives make learning a fixed component
Challenges
- The decoupling from pay is what is most often abandoned in practice
- Without room for teams to decide, it remains goal cascading under a new name
- The effort of the cycle is considerable and underestimated at first
- Unsuitable for stable routine processes
- Key results are often written as task lists rather than as result figures
- The formative sources are books; reliable free primary sources are missing
8. Best practices for implementation
Hold the line on decoupling from pay
That is the one decision everything hangs on. Tie OKR to a bonus and you get cautious objectives – exactly what the method sets out to avoid.
Write key results as results, not as tasks
"Training concept produced" is a task. "Processing time reduced from X to Y" is a result. The difference decides the benefit.
Leave day-to-day operations out
OKR reflects change. Taking running operations into it produces an unmanageable list with no steering effect.
Let teams formulate their own
Derived, but not allocated. Without a part in shaping them no commitment arises.
Start small
One area, one cycle, an honest retrospective. A company-wide introduction without experience regularly fails on the effort.
9. Tips for employers and employees
For employers
- **Do not tie it to the bonus** – that is the central point of the design
- **Key results are results** – not a task list
- **Reflect change initiatives only** – not day-to-day operations
- **Supply the room to decide** – otherwise it is goal cascading
For employees
- **Not reaching them is planned for** – with ambitious objectives that is the normal case
- **No link to pay** – if there is one, it is no longer OKR logic
- **Help formulate the objectives** – allocated objectives miss the purpose
- **Take the retrospective seriously** – that is where the real benefit of the cycle lies
10. Conclusion
OKR connects a qualitative objective with a few measurable results and works in short cycles – usually quarterly, with visible objectives and a regular retrospective.
The decisive point of the design is the decoupling from pay, and it is what practice most often abandons. The reason for the separation is sober: where money hangs on achievement, the height of the objective becomes a matter for negotiation, and the result is an objective that is safely reachable. OKR wants the opposite – objectives whose full achievement is not expected. Build OKR into a bonus system and you have a target agreement under a new name. In Germany that carries a further consequence: with the link to pay, Section 87 BetrVG applies and the works council has co-determination rights over it.
Two further points decide whether it works: key results must be results, not tasks – and the method reflects change initiatives, not day-to-day operations. Mixing the two produces a long list with no steering effect.
Part of placing it fairly: the formative accounts exist as books. There are no freely accessible primary sources to point to.
Sources
- Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering – agile organisation (English pages) (opens in a new tab)
- German Association for Human Resource Management – goal systems and steering (opens in a new tab)
- Federal Association of HR Managers (opens in a new tab)
Related terms
Our promise
Software supports. People take responsibility.
Let us talk about your payroll – no strings attached, specific, and with a dedicated contact from day one.