OKR variations: One goal or more than one goal?
I've seen that setting a single OKR is recommended instead of multiple. A single goal can help us learn OKRs and focus, but what do we lose? Let's review the pros and cons.
As I have covered in this publication, there is no formal standard for OKRs. I do not suggest that creating one would be an improvement; only to explain why there is significant variation in how OKRs are defined depending on which reference you review. The growth in popularity has seen an increase in OKR tools (or other task management tools adding on OKRs as a feature). As a result, tool vendors create versions of OKR documentation, and each varies in detail. I cover this more here:
On first inspection, the different documented versions of OKRs seemed fairly similar. If you examine the details closely, you will detect significant differences representing substantially different implementations.
The differences you will find across the popular OKR references include:
The number of OKRs recommended to be set.
The number of key results for each objective
Whether they are set top-down by the leadership, bottom-up by the teams or collaboratively.
The frequency they are set.
Whether to set at multiple levels in the organisation.
How publicly they are shared.
To be cascaded or aligned
i.e. Are the objectives inherited from higher-level goals, with a team inheriting the key result of their department or organisation as their team-level goal within the same period?
Or is there more flexibility for teams to set their goals, informed by other goals in the organisation, but choosing to align with those organisational goals in the way and timing that make the most sense in their situation?
Whether key results are activities or measures.
Whether objectives should be outcomes or outputs.
One of the differences I will explore in this post is the recommendations for the number of OKRs for a team per period. A few years ago, I maintained a table of sets of OKR documentation and some of the key differences. Since then, the growth in tools and documentation sets has made this information asset difficult to maintain, and I eventually abandoned the effort.
So, instead, I asked a few AIs for the most common guidance. They all concluded that 3-5 Objectives were the recommended amount, consistent with my past research and what I recommend to teams I work with. I pair this with โless is betterโ. While this is the most common recommendation, you will see a variety among the many OKR documentation sets. 2-5 is also quite common. Other goal-setting approaches recommend less.
For instance, 4DX (The 4 Disciplines of Execution) recommends setting 1-3 โWildly Important Goalsโ (WIGs)โi.e., what must be done. If not achieved, these goals would make other successes matter less. 4DX also recommends starting with one WIG.
Depending on the context, I may also recommend starting with a single goal with teams. Suppose the team struggles with focus and the choices that must be made to ensure progress on the most important goal. In that case, I will likely recommend focusing on a single goal while establishing the habits and discipline needed to maintain focus. In other situations, teams may struggle with important tradeoffs or balance between important goals more than the discipline of acting on goals. In these situations, I recommend setting multiple goals representing the different outcomes they must satisfy.
What do OKR thought leaders advise on the number of objectives to set?
Some other thought leaders in the OKR community have made similar recommendations - here are a couple of examples:
In her post โOne Objective to Rule Them Allโ, Christina Wodtke, author of โRadical Focus: Achieving your Most Important Goals with Objectives and Key Resultsโ, Christina goes well beyond recommending a single goal, instead going into why companies end up with too many goals and a strategy for moving beyond departmental goals to find the imperative for the whole organisation. It is a great read and is not dogmatic about setting a single goal but more strongly advocating โless is better.โ
Allan Kelly, author of โSucceeding with OKRs in Agile: How to create & deliver objectives & key results for teamsโ in his post โHow many OKRs should a team have? โ gives a range of 1-5 and a good rationale for why โless is betterโ. He shares that the usual is probably 3 or 4, and 6 is probably too many (โYou should be able to count the number of OKRs on the fingers [of] one handโ).
As a confounding example, Ben Lamorteโs post โHow Many OKRs Should You REALLY Have?โ surveys several approaches to the number of OKRs, including references to Christina Wodtke. Then he settles on 2-6 Objectives and 1-20 key results! (the larger number of Key Results comes about if you apply the idea of Milestone Key Results).
What are the benefits of a single objective?
The most significant benefit of setting a single objective within a period is focus. Multiple goals add more decisions about what to prioritise, which is already a challenge as OKRs represent a change that teams are trying to bring about for the organisation. A change can be seen to compete against the work operating the organisation as it is.
With each additional goal, the challenge of prioritisation increases. Time is sliced thinner to account for each additional goal. There is a natural pressure as organisations begin their goal-setting journey to add more goals. This is often driven by the fear of individuals and departments not having the work most pertinent to them represented by the prioritised goals. There is often a push for a fair spread of goals for all departments, which can lead to an explosion of goals and a loss of the desired focus.
For teams newer to managing work with goal-setting, it can be helpful to reduce this challenge by setting the least amount possible, where possible, a single goal.
What are the benefits of having multiple objectives?
Whether it's new teams or teams experienced with goal-setting, fewer goals are better if they adequately represent the organisation's imperatives. The challenge with limiting to a single goal is that there are often scenarios where it is inadequate to describe what the organisation must achieve.
This can be for a few reasons.
It may be possible to consolidate multiple goals into one goal; however, this can lead to a few challenges:
Goals become less clear or even complicated.
The goals may end up as a conjunction, i.e., we must achieve [A] AND [B]โin this case, these would be better as separate goals, each with its evidence of progress towards achieving (Key Results).
Another more nuanced challenge is the value multiple goals can have in interacting with each other. The relationship between goals can communicate something even more meaningful and can help teams consider tradeoffs or identify solutions that meet the needs of more than one goal.
An example may be team goals, which may look to introduce a change in how they deliver. They may also need to improve their protection against cyber risks. In some situations, these two goals may lead to conflict where certain paths for achieving efficiency may increase cyber risk, and some options for addressing cyber risk may introduce more inefficiency.
Having explicit goals allows teams to discuss and identify options that address both. Rather than trade one against the other, it involves considering options that could satisfy both.
In summary, if you can define a single goal that adequately describes the imperative for an organisation or a team, then do so. If doing so compromises accurately representing the organisation's needs, then consider multiple goals. However, remember that โless is betterโ, and the drive for more may not come from organisational imperatives but from a fear of missing out.
Are you using a goal-setting approach for your team or organisation? How many goals within a given period do you set? Share your approach in the comments.