I’ve sat through OKR workshops. I’ve written SMART goals. I’ve seen BHAGs, MBOs, V2MOMs. Every year there’s a new framework that promises to be the answer.

Most goal-setting becomes corporate theater. We craft goals that sound impressive but are too fluffy to drive decisions. We keep them “short and to the point” but lose clarity and ownership in the process.

The structural problem with OKRs: they provide too much flexibility and too little guidance. Organizations report the system breaking down around 25-50 people, with complexity increasing exponentially as teams scale. The framework itself becomes the problem — not because it’s wrong, but because it’s so flexible that every organization implements it differently, leading to endless trial and error.

What nobody wants to say: we avoid assigning clear ownership because it forces us to confront something we don’t want to see. When you try to name an owner, you realize your teams aren’t set up to be independent.

Instead of fixing that, we assign ownership to “areas” or “the VP of Engineering.”

Areas don’t do work. VPs don’t write code. Real work happens at team and IC level — they need to own these goals.

I’ve made all these mistakes. There’s a simpler approach.

Borrowing from the famous 6-pager

Jesse Freeman’s breakdown of Amazon’s 6-pager format describes how Amazon writes goals. It’s simple:

  1. The goal itself - bolded, few words
  2. A single sentence adding context
  3. Historical data point
  4. Projected data point
  5. Explicit calculation of change

Here’s what this looks like:

Reduce customer onboarding time. New customers take too long to complete their first transaction, leading to drop-off and support burden. We will measure our improvement by reducing the average time to first transaction from 4.2 days (Q4 2025) to 1.5 days (Q2 2026), a 64% reduction.

It forces clarity. You can’t be vague. You can’t hide behind aspirational language. You have to know where you are, where you’re going, and by when.

The baseline is everything. Goals like “improve conversion by 40%” are common where no one can state the baseline.

If you can’t state your baseline, you don’t know how to measure what you want. When Q2 arrives, does “conversion” mean signup? Purchase? Free-to-paid? Measured how?

Without the baseline, you haven’t defined the goal.

Three Critical Additions

The format gives you the what and the when. Three more things make it work:

1. Tangible deliveries

Show how you’ll achieve it: By: automated account setup flow, eliminating manual bank verification steps, pre-filling company data via integrations.

These outputs create alignment — everyone understands what you’re building, it feels achievable, and they open up the dependency conversation. The payments team can say “you’ll affect us, we need to be involved.” The integrations team can say “we’re building that, we can help.”

2. Named ownership

Assign to a specific person, not a team, not an area.

Owner: Sarah Chen

It’s uncomfortable because it exposes organizational gaps. But that discomfort is useful—it forces you to fix the structure or acknowledge the constraint.

3. Following up

Goals die here. You need a rhythm. Monthly works well in most cases, though some fast-moving startups need weekly, and larger orgs can do quarterly. But start smaller: just ask about goals. In 1:1s. In team meetings. “How’s the onboarding goal tracking?” This shows it matters.

Make updates easy. Spreadsheet or Word doc. Low tech wins. Avoid tool bureaucracy.

Track two things: progress and confidence. Progress is the metric. But confidence is more telling. How confident is the owner that we’ll hit this?

Real-world goals don’t progress linearly. Some sit at 0% for months while building infrastructure, then jump to 80% when you ship.

If Sarah says “0% progress but highly confident—shipping in March,” that’s different from panic.

Psychological safety matters here. If Sarah can’t say she’s not confident without fear, you won’t get honest updates. I’ve watched this break in a specific way: an engineer said “I’m behind” in a goal review, and the VP immediately asked “Should we find someone else to own this?” The engineer never gave honest updates again. Low confidence should trigger help, not blame.

Meeting structure affects psychological safety, which drives performance. When goal reviews feel like interrogations rather than problem-solving sessions, people perform for the audience rather than tell the truth.

The other way to kill it: ignore your own cadence. If you set an update cadence, respect it. Don’t ask for adhoc updates. Don’t Slack “give me an update on goal Y?” If you’ve asked for monthly updates, follow that schedule yourself. Otherwise you’re teaching everyone the cadence doesn’t matter.

Putting It Together

Here’s a complete goal:

Reduce customer onboarding time. New customers currently take too long to complete their first transaction, leading to drop-off and support burden. We will measure our improvement by reducing the average time to first transaction from 4.2 days (Q4 2025) to 1.5 days (Q2 2026), a 64% reduction, by e.g., automated account setup flow, eliminating manual bank verification steps, pre-filling company data via integrations. Owner: Sarah Chen

Yes, it’s long. But the clarity is what makes it work.

It covers: what we’re achieving, why it matters, where we are and where we’re going, how we’ll get there, who owns it.

Sarah knows what she owns. The payments team knows they’re affected. Leadership knows what success looks like and when. No ambiguity.

The frameworks will keep coming. Next year there’ll be a new one. You don’t need it.

You need clarity on what you’re achieving, a baseline, someone who owns it, tangible work to point to, and a cadence you actually keep.

No acronyms required.

One last thing: this post critiques framework proliferation, but the Amazon 6-pager format plus three additions is a framework. The distinction isn’t between having structure and not having it. It’s between simple structure you can actually use versus complex frameworks that collapse under their own weight. Choose structure that clarifies rather than obscures.

Further Reading

The ideas above have been shaped by excellent writing on goal-setting from others:

Want to discuss goal-setting or organizational scaling? Get in touch.