Key results

Key Results are the measurable outcomes that define success for an objective within the OKR (Objectives and Key Results) framework. While objectives express what you want to achieve in qualitative, inspirational terms, key results specify how you'll know you've achieved it through concrete, quantifiable metrics. Good key results answer the question: "How would we know if we succeeded?"

Why it matters

Ambitious objectives without measurable outcomes produce activity without accountability. Teams pursue vague goals like "improve customer experience" without knowing what improvement looks like or whether they've achieved it. Resources get spent, time passes, and everyone claims success based on whatever narrative suits them.

Key Results create clarity and accountability. They force specificity about what success means before work begins. They enable objective assessment of progress and outcomes. They prevent the revisionist histories that plague unmeasured initiatives ("we didn't hit our original goals, but we achieved these other things we're now calling success").

For product managers, key results translate product strategy into trackable commitments. They provide the language for conversations with stakeholders about priorities and trade-offs. They create focus by making clear what matters - and implicitly, what doesn't.

Characteristics of good key results

Effective key results share several characteristics that distinguish them from vague intentions or activity metrics.

Measurable. A key result must be quantifiable. "Improved onboarding" isn't measurable. "Increase 7-day activation rate from 35% to 50%" is measurable. If you can't attach a number, it's not a key result.

Outcome-oriented. Key results measure results, not activities. "Launch three onboarding improvements" is an activity. "Increase 7-day activation rate" is an outcome. Activities might or might not produce outcomes; key results focus on what actually matters.

Time-bound. Key results have deadlines, typically aligned with OKR cycles (quarterly or annually). The time boundary creates urgency and enables assessment.

Ambitious but achievable. Key results should stretch the team beyond comfortable performance while remaining within the realm of possibility. The conventional guidance suggests teams should hit about 70% of their key results - indicating sufficient ambition.

Within influence. Teams should be able to meaningfully affect their key results through their work. A key result dependent entirely on external factors outside the team's control creates frustration rather than motivation.

Writing key results

Crafting effective key results requires balancing specificity, ambition, and relevance.

Start with the objective. The objective defines the destination. Key results define how you'll know you've arrived. If your objective is "Deliver an exceptional onboarding experience," your key results should measure onboarding effectiveness from the user's perspective.

Choose metrics that matter. Not everything measurable is meaningful. Key results should connect to business outcomes and user value, not just easily tracked numbers. Activation rate matters more than tooltip clicks.

Set ambitious targets. Key results should require meaningful effort and possibly some luck to achieve. If you're confident you'll hit 100%, the target is too easy. If you're confident you won't hit 50%, the target might be unrealistic.

Limit quantity. Each objective should have 2-5 key results. Too few leaves important dimensions unmeasured. Too many dilutes focus and complicates tracking.

Write complete statements. A key result should be interpretable without additional context. "Improve activation" isn't complete. "Increase 7-day activation rate from 35% to 50% by end of Q2" is complete - metric, starting point, target, and deadline are all explicit.

Examples of key results

For an objective like "Deliver an exceptional onboarding experience":

For an objective like "Build a product customers love":

Notice that each key result is specific, measurable, and focused on outcomes rather than outputs.

Key results vs. tasks

A common mistake is confusing key results with tasks or milestones. The distinction matters.

Tasks are things you do: ship a feature, run a campaign, conduct interviews. They're activities under your direct control.

Key results are outcomes that may or may not happen even when tasks are completed. Shipping an onboarding improvement doesn't guarantee improved activation rates. Running a marketing campaign doesn't guarantee increased signups.

The gap between tasks and key results represents uncertainty. You believe completing certain tasks will achieve certain results, but you don't know for sure. Key results keep focus on what you're actually trying to achieve, not just what you're doing.

Key results vs. kpis

Key results and KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are related but distinct.

KPIs are ongoing health metrics you track continuously. They represent permanent measures of business or product performance.

Key results are time-bound targets attached to specific objectives. They represent what you're trying to achieve this quarter or year.

A KPI might become a key result when you attach a specific target and deadline. "Monthly active users" is a KPI you always track. "Increase monthly active users from 100K to 150K by Q4" is a key result for a specific growth objective.

Scoring key results

At the end of an OKR cycle, key results are scored to assess progress.

The typical scoring scale runs from 0 to 1 (or 0% to 100%), with 0.7 (70%) considered a successful outcome for ambitious targets. This might seem counterintuitive - why set targets you expect to miss? - but the logic is that truly ambitious targets stretch performance beyond what conservative targets would achieve.

Scoring approaches vary:

The scoring conversation matters as much as the score itself. Why did you hit or miss? What did you learn? What would you do differently? Scoring is reflection, not just measurement.

Common pitfalls

Several patterns undermine key result effectiveness.

Activity masquerading as outcomes. "Launch mobile app" is a task, not a key result. What outcome should the mobile app achieve? That's the key result.

Targets without baselines. "Achieve 40% activation rate" means nothing without knowing current state. Is 40% ambitious or conservative? Baselines provide context.

Metrics that can be gamed. If a key result can be achieved through behaviors that don't serve the actual objective, people will game it. Pair metrics or choose ones harder to manipulate.

Too many key results. When everything is a key result, nothing is. Focus on the 3-5 metrics that truly indicate success.

Changing key results mid-cycle. Adjusting targets when achievement looks unlikely undermines the framework's accountability. Set targets thoughtfully, then live with them.

Confusing stretch goals with impossible goals. Ambitious targets that nobody believes are achievable demotivate rather than inspire. Stretch means difficult but possible.

Key results in practice

For product teams, key results serve multiple functions beyond accountability.

Alignment tool. When everyone knows the key results, decisions become easier. Does this feature help us hit our key results? If not, why are we building it?

Prioritization guide. When choosing between options, prefer those that move key results. This focus prevents scope creep and feature bloat.

Communication device. Key results tell stakeholders what you're optimizing for. They set expectations about what will and won't happen.

Learning mechanism. Missed key results aren't failures if they generate insight. Why did the metric not move? What did you learn about customers or the market? The measurement enables learning.

Tools like Klero connect customer feedback to product outcomes, helping teams understand why key results are or aren't progressing. When you can see how customer sentiment relates to activation or retention metrics, you have the insight needed to actually move the numbers - not just measure them.