OKR Writing Standards: The Calorie Model for Better Key Results

In the era of KPIs, the approach to solving strategic execution problems was to decompose metrics. Take the company we mentioned earlier that wanted to execute "ten major battles" as an example. I've seen their reports—they explain in great detail why these "ten major battles" were chosen. But when it comes to how to execute them, the reports are vague. The thinking is more like "I want to generate 1 billion in profit, Product Line A takes 300 million, Product Line B takes 500 million, Product Line C takes 200 million." But why split it into 300 million, 500 million, and 200 million? What methods will achieve these profit targets? These questions remain unanswered.

This is where the problem lies. When you decompose strategy using metrics, you don't clarify why the metrics are set, which means strategic communication remains unclear. You also don't clarify how to achieve the metrics, which means the plan remains unexecutable, and the disconnect between leadership and execution persists.

So what's the OKR approach? It aims not just to decompose metrics, but to use a simple writing format to help companies—or help leaders—articulate fuzzy strategic thinking. Note the key word is "thinking," which then transforms into executable actions, and at the textual level, promotes full understanding between top and bottom.

How do you write OKRs specifically? Let me explain in detail.

2. OKR Writing Standards

There are four fundamental standards for writing OKRs. I'll list them:

1. Not only state what to do, but also clarify why
2. Not only state why, but also clarify how
3. Not only clarify how, but make results measurable
4. Not only make results measurable, but express them unambiguously

1) Not Only State What to Do, But Also Clarify Why

Let's go through each one. First, "not only state what to do, but also clarify why."

I've prepared a comparison chart showing a typical R&D department's KPIs versus OKRs. You'll find that KPIs only specify what to do but don't clarify why. Looking at OKRs, they also specify what to do—the three KRs, which can be understood as "what to do." But above that, there's an O (Objective) that expresses why to do it, or answers what the reason is for completing the action or metric.

The O can sometimes be quantified—for example, "NPS value reaches 60" is quantified—but it doesn't have to be. That's not the most important thing. What matters most in writing the O is conveying a clear sense of direction and strong visionary appeal.

Let me give you an everyday example:

Say you have an O like "Strengthen English learning and improve English proficiency." This O doesn't convey a sense of direction, nor does it have visionary appeal, because everyone agrees with "improving English proficiency," but we all know that while the mind understands, the body doesn't move—the same problem organizations face with the disconnect between leadership and execution.

How to fix it? Ask yourself: Why do I want to improve my English? To watch American TV shows without subtitles? To pass an exam? Neither. Then why? To be able to speak English in cross-border meetings. Good—that's an O with clear direction and the power to inspire action. So you could write: "Within six months, improve English proficiency to the level where I can participate in English meeting discussions and improve collaboration with overseas teams."

So why write a "why" with clear direction and visionary appeal above the "what"?

In the fairy tale "The Little Prince," there's a line: "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea." This speaks to "setting a clear, challenging goal that can mobilize people's enthusiasm." Similar views have been proposed by Drucker, management theorists, and psychologists.

Some people today mythologize OKRs, which I don't agree with. You ask an employee to do something, they don't do it well, so you change the approach and force them to say it's what they want to do, so they do it well. How could anything be that simple? So we shouldn't exaggerate the motivational effect of goal-setting on individuals. OKRs do help with employee motivation—I think that's an objective statement.

For example, we have a consumer goods client. Every time there's a promotional event like Double 11 or 618, the company needs R&D staff to be on duty to handle trivial IT requests. The R&D team is small, and they have to work late, so morale is naturally low. What to do? The CEO wrote "improve team efficiency" into their O, with two KRs:

1. Develop data cleanup tools and deliver them to the implementation team, achieving 100% response to merchant activity IT needs
2. Build a team knowledge base that solves at least 60% of repetitive questions

This approach inspired the R&D team's autonomy. They proactively thought along the lines of the CEO's OKR about how to develop appropriate tools and build a knowledge base to solve their own problems, rather than passively accepting their "fate" of doing repetitive work forever. You see, this is the benefit of setting goals with clear direction and visionary appeal.

In summary, OKRs clarify the "why" behind strategic actions layer by layer, allowing every function in the company to clearly understand the purpose of each action, thus achieving alignment and making strategic communication clearer.

2) Clarify How, Make Results Measurable

Good, after explaining "clarify why," let's move on. I'll combine the second and third OKR writing standards: "clarify how, make results measurable."

Some might ask, hasn't "what to do" already been clarified? I want to tell you that "what to do" is not the same as "how to do it." Many companies struggle with OKR implementation because they write KRs as to-do lists. Similarly, OKR's "measurable results" differ from KPI's key metrics.

Let's look at the standard format, returning to the R&D department OKR example:

R&D Department OKR Example:

• O: Ensure new products launch on time and gain recognition from initial customers, with NPS reaching 60
• KR1: Smooth rollout of improvement plan, bug rate controlled within 3%, no major system incidents @B @C
• KR2: Improve system experience, reduce implementation/customer service feedback issues to XXX, reduce tickets to XXX @D
• KR3: Average customer usage time for new features reaches XX hours @B @D

We discussed the O earlier. Now let's talk about KRs. KRs represent our strategic thinking about how to achieve a goal or vision—the action path. Let's use KR1 as an example. Ignore @B@C for now—that's for later. Look at the first half of KR1: "Smooth rollout of improvement plan." This is what we call "how to do it"—an action path supporting the O. The second half, "bug rate controlled within 3% within, no major system incidents," says "how do I prove at the end of the quarter that I've successfully walked this path?"

Why write it this way? How does this differ from KPIs?

Let me share a real case. One of our consumer goods clients initially wrote their OKRs like this:

• O: Increase total product sales to X billion
• KR1: Strengthen offline channels
• KR2: Improve community user engagement
• KR3: Mainstream e-commerce channel GMV breaks through 1000% growth
• KR4: Complete user analysis
• KR5: Within one year, supermarket channel sales grow XX%

These KRs don't meet format requirements. They look like OKRs but are KPIs at heart.

For example, "KR3: Mainstream e-commerce channel GMV breaks through 1000% growth." First, regardless of whether 1000% growth is achievable, what actions can achieve such growth? Leveraging platform promotional events? Through live streaming? You see, the path isn't written, which means the thinking isn't thorough.

Another example: "KR4: Complete user analysis." What's its relationship to your O "increase total product sales"? In other words, what's the purpose of "doing user analysis"? Identify target customer groups? Understand consumption habits? If so, write it out. So after discussion, we suggested changing this KR to: "Through user analysis, optimize online advertising campaigns, increase purchase conversion by XX%, generating revenue of XX million."

You see, when we write to-dos, we usually write "who does what at what time," but KRs are "through meeting what needs or providing what customer value, we can achieve what results." KR thinking requires more fundamental analysis and gets to the heart of the problem.

Good, that's "clarify how." Now let's look at "make results measurable."

For example, "KR2: Improve community user engagement." What data or standards can show that user engagement has improved? If there are 100 users speaking in the WeChat group now and 1,000 in the future, does that count as improvement? If 5% repurchase now and 10% repurchase in the future, does that count? In other words, how do you prove afterward that this path attempt was effective? Finally, this KR was revised to: "Improve community user engagement, increase repurchase rate by 20%."

Please note: a 20% increase in repurchase rate proves that the path "improve community user engagement" was achieved, but it doesn't represent the O—it doesn't mean total sales will necessarily grow by a certain amount. This is the difference between OKR's "measurable results" and KPI logic's key metrics. Under KPI logic, metrics are assigned to different departments and teams in a top-down manner, like a results-oriented military order. But OKRs focus on process—"measurable results" prove that the process was executed properly.

Some people also mention that KPIs emphasize strategic decomposition while OKRs emphasize strategic deduction—this is a vivid description. Decomposition means breaking down goals and numbers and assigning them to individuals. Deduction means not just decomposing goals, but building the supporting relationships, logical relationships, and causal relationships between goals, so everyone can see the development path to achieve the goals.

This consumer goods company's OKRs were finally adjusted to this, which is deduction:

• O: Increase total product sales to X billion
• KR1: This quarter, expand channels in 10+ second- and third-tier cities' local supermarkets and convenience stores, offline channel sales grow 50%
• KR2: Improve community user engagement, repurchase rate increases 20%
• KR3: Seize platform promotional opportunities, create more attractive content marketing + live streaming formats, mainstream e-commerce GMV breaks through 100% growth
• KR4: Through user analysis, optimize online advertising campaigns, purchase conversion rate increases XX%, generating revenue of XX million

You see, isn't this much better? This is why KRs emphasize "clarify how, make results measurable"—it creates a tighter connection between strategic execution and strategic thinking. Moreover, actions can calibrate thinking. If a KR's results aren't achieved, it means there's an execution problem—this path doesn't work right now. If the KR's results are achieved but the supporting O doesn't improve accordingly, it means the path was wrong, and you need to try other approaches.

3) Express Unambiguously

Good, we've discussed three OKR writing standards: "clarify why," "clarify how," and "make results measurable." Now let's talk about the last one: "express unambiguously."

In our work serving companies, people often ask whether OKR writing needs to be pedantic about wording. Some ask: Is it absolutely forbidden to use vague adjectives? Others ask: What if I can't estimate measurable results? Here I want to tell you: the purpose of form is to force thinking—form itself isn't important. For example, if you can't estimate results well, you can write "generate revenue of XX million" or "purchase conversion rate increases XX%"—that's perfectly fine. In the case we just discussed, we recommended clients write it this way.

If form itself isn't important, what is? Expressing unambiguously—in other words, when this OKR is written, everyone in the company understands it consistently.

Let's use the consumer goods company case again. Their original KR1 was "Strengthen offline channels." According to the standards we discussed, this definitely doesn't qualify. But even if employees all know what you're referring to, then expression doesn't matter.

The problem is that in consulting, we find that in most scenarios, there's no consensus. What "offline channels" mainly refers to differs across departments. If you write it this way, problems will arise when they collaborate in the future. So to eliminate ambiguity, KR1 was changed to "Expand channels in 10+ second- and third-tier cities' local supermarkets and convenience stores, drive sales growth of 50%." It's a bit wordy, but everyone understands what it means.

Good, we've now covered all the OKR format requirements:

1. Not only state what to do, but also clarify why
2. Not only state why, but also clarify how
3. Not only clarify how, but make results measurable
4. Not only make results measurable, but express them unambiguously

Through this standard, concise expression format, OKRs help you articulate fuzzy strategic thinking, making strategy actionable and executable. Then through frequent follow-up and review, continuously calibrate and promote organizational action to keep up with thinking, improving the effectiveness of strategic execution.

Let me add one more thing. Some people will tell you that the format standard for KRs is the "SMART" principle. Let me list it for you to review:

"SMART" refers to five acronyms: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bounded:

• Specific: Clear and concrete
• Measurable: Can be measured
• Attainable: Achievable
• Relevant: Relevant
• Time-bounded: Time-bound

I believe "SMART" isn't the essence OKRs pursue, but it is a good validation tool. After your company sets OKRs each quarter, you can use "SMART" to check them. If they don't meet SMART criteria, it means the process still hasn't been discussed clearly enough.

3. How to Output Quality KRs

Good, we've covered how to write OKRs, but I'm sure you still find writing KRs difficult.

So how do you come up with quality KRs? I recommend a thinking tool called the Calorie Model. Anyone at any level in the company can use this model to think through their KRs.

What is the Calorie Model? Let me explain in detail.

"卡" (Ka) represents bottlenecks. You can think about where achieving this goal might get stuck.

For example, that SaaS company we mentioned earlier used "divergence and convergence" to develop four Os for this quarter:

• O1: Mature products expand TMT market advantage, revenue grows with quality, ARR reaches XX billion
• O2: Hybrid deployment implementation model validated in mid-size customers (1,000-5,000 people), can achieve scaled delivery in 2-3 industries
• O3: Iterate innovation stimulation and incentive mechanisms, open 1-2 SaaS new products that can lead the market
• O4: Through building digital mechanisms, improve front-middle-back office collaboration efficiency, average customer demand response time shortened by XX%

The first O is "Mature products expand TMT market advantage, revenue grows with quality, ARR reaches XX billion." Where might this goal get stuck?

If the market can't be opened, it could be because "product capabilities aren't perfect enough, compared to competitors, premium pricing is insufficient," or it could be "in South China, we have less reach to large customers." After discussion, they determined the main bottleneck is insufficient channel building in South China.

Good, that's "卡" (Ka) in "Calorie." Now look at "路" (Lu), which represents the path to achieve a goal—what tasks need to be completed to break through the bottleneck. Sometimes I also recommend companies use "leverage" thinking for this question—what leverage can move the bottleneck.

For example, this SaaS company found that in the South China market where they have less presence, some channels can batch-reach decision-makers in customer companies, such as business school alumni groups and industry associations. Sales establishing relationships with these channels might solve the problem. Good—that's a path to solve the bottleneck.

After explaining "卡" (Ka) and "路" (Lu), what does "里" (Li) refer to? It refers to milestones or stage progress during work advancement that can show this path has been successfully walked and the strategy has been validated.

For example, for establishing relationships with new channels, the milestone could be "added XX sales leads." You see, combining "Calorie" this way yields new KRs:

• O: Mature products expand TMT market advantage, revenue breaks through XX billion
• KR1: Product adds functional modules A, B, C, and validates value in TMT industry, industry win contract amount reaches XX
• KR2: Focus on expanding South China TMT large customers, add XX new large customer wins, contract amount XX
• KR3: Hold X market events targeting TMT industry, consolidate market advantage in North and East China, sales leads increase XX%

4. Summary

Good, we've covered the main content of this section. Finally, I've prepared a real case study. Combined with the previous section's content, I want to walk through a complete OKR execution cycle with you, seeing how the writing format functions to guide companies to quickly try strategies and iterate strategies. This serves as a review. If you feel you didn't remember some parts of these two sections, this is a good opportunity to review.

Among our clients, there's a wealth management company whose main business is providing investment and financial services to high-net-worth individuals. They started using Feishu OKR in early 2020. Between 2020-2021, the financial industry was implementing a "break rigid redemption" system—financial products could no longer promise customers stable returns. This had a significant impact on the company's business. Customers became more cautious about investing, and the company could no longer attract customers the old way. This caused the marketing department to panic. Previously, they didn't need to think much about "how to acquire customers"—they just did advertising and channel marketing, and performance was achieved. But now, they had to find ways to actively seek customers.

Good, that's the background. Let's see how OKRs assisted them.

In Q2 2020, they wrote OKRs for the first time. The goal was "Full-channel product promotion, revenue reaches XX billion." The KRs were key results for various promotion channels: media advertising, app advertising, branch promotion, channel joint promotion, old customer referrals. After learning the content we just covered, you'll realize this method of writing OKRs using decomposition logic isn't entirely accurate. It only uses the OKR form—the core is still the KPI approach. The results weren't good, of course. Every task required large budget resources, but in the end, customers remained in a wait-and-see state.

By Q3, everyone was determined not to continue like this and needed to seriously reflect on which link the problem appeared in. At the Q2 OKR review meeting, everyone shared their views. One marketing manager mentioned that he had recently seriously shared new-era investment concepts with his customers, which immediately attracted several old customers. They not only purchased more products but also brought in several new customers.

This manager's comment inspired the CEO. Previously, to earn higher commissions, their thinking had always stayed focused on products. But times had changed—there were no longer "bulletproof" products. Now the most important thing was to flexibly configure product combinations based on customer needs. This required advisors to have deep asset allocation knowledge. So the CEO adjusted direction from "pushing products out" to "pushing professional advisors out."

So in the Q3 OKR setting meeting, the CEO wrote an O clearly stating: "Build a true financial expert team, launch product combinations around customer needs, revenue reaches XX billion." One of the KRs was "Build professional knowledge base, all staff master new policies, pass assessment and work with certification." Afterward, in weekly follow-up meetings, the CEO required everyone to report progress, including how the knowledge base was being built and how many advisors had passed the assessment.

Not only that. Because they kept aligning goals and following up on execution effects, they gradually discovered a group that had been overlooked: high-net-worth families' full-time homemakers. They control financial power, and relationships between wives are very close. So by Q4, the CEO adjusted direction again, deciding to strengthen relationships with this customer segment. The marketing department held many family days and parent-child activities while promoting financial concepts.

In this way, from Q3 to Q4, the marketing department's approach became increasingly clear, and return on investment grew higher and higher. By year-end, this wealth management company's per-capita output doubled compared to 2019. Under the background of the pandemic and strict regulation, they achieved remarkable performance growth. You see, OKRs in this process, through standardized writing and strict execution of the "four meetings" process, achieved the role of helping companies conduct strategic calibration.

Good, let's summarize this section's content:

1. OKRs provide a standard language that helps companies align understanding of strategy from top to bottom, making strategic execution keep up with strategic thinking. This standard language follows SMART principles, describing both the reasons behind the O and deducing the key paths (KRs) to achieve goals.

2. The specific language format can be summarized in four sentences:

   • Not only state what to do, but also clarify why
   • Not only state why, but also clarify how
   • Not only clarify how, but make results measurable
   • Not only make results measurable, but express them unambiguously

If you want to implement OKRs in your company, I suggest printing these four sentences and posting them on the wall.

3. If KRs are hard to think through, you can use the Calorie Model to guide your thinking.