Goal setting at Google

by George Ambler on Sunday, February 21, 2010

 

image 

 Photo by Anderaz

Don Dodge, a Developer Advocate at Google helping developers build new applications on Google platforms and technologies, wrote an interesting post “How Google sets goals and measures success” discussing how Google goes about goal setting. Don describes the central philosophy to Google’s approach to goal setting is as follows:

google-quote
The Google goal setting process happens in a 90 day cycle…

“Every quarter every group at Google sets goals, called OKRs, for the next 90 days. Most big companies set annual goals like improving or growing something by x%, and then measure performance once a year. At Google a year is like a decade. Annual goals aren’t good enough. Set quarterly goals, set them at impossible levels, and then figure out how to achieve them. Measure progress every quarter and reward outstanding achievement.”

Don makes the following observations and insights of his experience with the goal-setting process at Google:

  • OKRs are Objectives and Key Results. I submitted my Q1 OKRs with what I thought were aggressive yet achievable goals. Not good enough. My manager explained that we needed to set stretch goals that seemed impossible to fully achieve. Hmmm…I said “This is just a 90 day window and we can predict with reasonable accuracy what is achievable. Why set unrealistic goals?” Because you can’t achieve amazing results by setting modest targets. We want amazing results. We want to tackle the impossible.
  • Failure is not an option – A while ago I wrote a post about the culture of “failure is not an option” and how, taken the wrong way, that actually conditions people to set modest achievable goals that they are certain they can achieve. Because if they fail…they are fired. Taking great risks, pushing innovation, and striving to achieve the impossible will never happen at companies like that. In that post I discuss how startups definition of “failure is not an option” is completely different. For startups it means they will try 5 or 10 or 20 approaches until they find one that works. They won’t stop until they succeed. Google’s culture seems to follow the Thomas Edison approach which paraphrased is “I haven’t failed, I’ve just found lots of approaches that don’t work, and I am closer to the solution”.
  • Achieving 65% of the impossible is better than 100% of the ordinary – Setting impossible goals and achieving part of them sets you on a completely different path than the safe route. Sometimes you can achieve the impossible in a quarter, but even when you don’t, you are on a fast track to achieving it soon. Measuring success every quarter allows for mid course corrections and setting higher goals for the next quarter.
  • Rewards For Success – The rewards for achieving the impossible are significant. As you might expect there is an algorithm for calculating engineering bonuses with various multipliers. Google attracts the best people in the industry for many reasons, maybe most importantly because they give people the resources and support they need to achieve the impossible. Financial rewards are significant, but they are not the primary motivator. Working with the best people in the world and achieving greatness is the ultimate reward.

It seems to me this continually striving for breakthrough innovation, by setting BHAG’s and clear objectives is working for them. Too many organisation don’t take this process seriously enough to commit the necessary time and resources to defining a limited set of clear outcomes and committing the necessary resources to ensure it’s achieved.

 

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts:

  1. 10 Steps to Setting SMART objectives
  2. Setting SMART Objectives
  3. When goal-setting backfires
  4. Three criteria for defining a worthwhile goal
  5. Happiness, Success and Goal Setting

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

1 davidburkus February 24, 2010 at 0:29

I like impossible bodacious goals better than big, hair audacious goals. Collins be damned!

Reply

2 Marvin March 15, 2010 at 17:12

I love this statement from the article. Achieving 65% of the impossible is better than 100% of the ordinary.
We should always challenge our potential and the potential of those around us. Thanks for sharing.

Reply

3 carol mcdonald March 23, 2010 at 16:14

what if doing a good job AND having a life outside of work (with a family) is your goal?

Reply

4 carol mcdonald March 23, 2010 at 16:15

constantly trying to do the impossible sounds a recipe for burn out to me

Reply

5 Mike April 3, 2010 at 13:50

This is an interesting thought – “Achieving 65% of the impossible is better than 100% of the ordinary “.
One needs to learn about goal setting from the Olympic gold medalist rower- Sir Mathew Pinsent.
At the IMD OWP 2010 Pinsent will share his experience from four Olympic campaigns, which resulted in four gold medals. He will highlight the importance of goal setting, communication, trust and ultimately the courage it takes to win in the toughest of conditions.

Reply

6 Jonas April 4, 2010 at 22:45

But i think the major thing that makes the difference and that is not stated here but in the original post is the fact that “it is the mindset and culture that is totally different” at google. Just installing such instruments doesnt do the trick. you have to have the culture, too!

Reply

7 Expert Program Management April 27, 2010 at 16:51

I’m in agreement with Jonas here. It’s not just about setting amazing goals, there needs to be a whole organizational culture in place to support them. Does anyone know if failure to achieve your goals means no bonus? I would hope not – what if the “how” you went about achieving the goal was amazing, even if the “what” you achieved wasn’t

DJ

Reply

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: