Goal Setting Workflow

Purpose

Establish ambitious but realistic targets for defined metrics by understanding company-level impact needed, validating team's ability to move the metric, and evaluating trade-offs between aggressive and conservative goals.

When to Use This Workflow

Use this workflow when:

• After defining success metrics, need to set OKRs or targets
• Planning roadmap and need to estimate impact of initiatives
• Leadership asks "what's the goal for this metric this quarter?"
• Evaluating whether proposed project is worth the investment
• Setting team or product area goals
• Translating company-level goals to product-level targets

Skills Sequence

This workflow orchestrates 3 core skills:

1. North Star Alignment
   ↓ (How much movement matters to company goals?)
2. Proxy Metric Selection
   ↓ (Validate metric is movable by this team)
3. Trade-off Evaluation
   ↓ (Cost of aggressive vs conservative targets)
   
OUTPUT: Target value or % improvement, timeframe, confidence level,
        dependencies and assumptions

Required Inputs

Gather this information before starting:

Metric Information

• The metric and its current baseline

  • Metric name and formula
  • Current value
  • Example: "Weekly Active Users = 100,000"

• Historical trends

  • How has metric moved historically?
  • Seasonality patterns?
  • Growth rate trajectory?
  • Example: "Growing 3% month-over-month for past year"

Context

• Planned initiatives

  • What are you building to move this metric?
  • Estimated impact of each initiative
  • Timeline for delivery

• Comparison benchmarks (if available)

  • Competitor metrics
  • Industry standards
  • Similar products' performance

Company Goals

• Company-level targets

  • What are company OKRs?
  • How does this metric contribute?
  • What movement is needed for company goals?

• Resource constraints

  • Team size and capacity
  • Budget limitations
  • Technical constraints

Workflow Steps

Step 1: Assess Company-Level Impact Needed (15 minutes)

Use the

north-star-alignment

skill

Understand how much metric movement matters to company goals:

Activities:

1. Identify North Star connection

   • How does your metric connect to company North Star?
   • What's the multiplier or contribution factor?
   • Example: "10% increase in WAU → 2% increase in company MAU"

2. Calculate company goal contribution

   • If company wants X% growth in North Star
   • How much must your metric grow?
   • Example: "Company wants 10% MAU growth; our product = 20% of MAU; need 10% WAU growth minimum"

3. Evaluate strategic importance

   • Is this metric critical path to company goals?
   • Or nice-to-have but not essential?
   • Priority: Critical / Important / Opportunistic

Output:

## Company-Level Impact Assessment

**North Star Connection:**
- Company North Star: [Metric name]
- Your metric's contribution: [How it ladders up]
- Multiplier/factor: [Quantify relationship]

**Company Goal Translation:**
- Company target: [X% growth in North Star]
- Required from your product: [Y% growth in your metric]
- Rationale: [Calculation or logic]

**Strategic Priority:**
- [Critical / Important / Opportunistic]
- Why: [Explanation]

**Minimum viable target:**
- To meet company needs: [Minimum % or absolute value]

Step 2: Validate Metric Movability (20 minutes)

Use the

proxy-metric-selection

skill

Confirm the team can actually influence this metric:

Activities:

1. Identify levers team controls

   • What features/changes can team implement?
   • What's outside team's control?
   • What dependencies exist?

2. Estimate initiative impacts

   • For each planned initiative, estimate impact
   • Use historical data, A/B tests, competitor analysis
   • Range estimates (low/medium/high confidence)

3. Sum potential impact

   • Add up all initiatives
   • Account for overlap/cannibalization
   • Reality-check against historical growth rates

4. Assess confidence

   • High confidence: Proven tactics, similar to past successes
   • Medium confidence: Reasonable hypotheses, some validation
   • Low confidence: Exploratory, unproven approaches

Output:

## Movability Assessment

**Team Control:**
- Direct levers: [What team can change]
- Indirect influence: [What team can affect partially]
- Outside control: [What team cannot affect]

**Planned Initiatives:**

| Initiative | Est. Impact (Low) | Est. Impact (High) | Confidence | Timeline |
|------------|-------------------|---------------------|------------|----------|
| [Feature A] | +2% | +5% | Medium | Q1 |
| [Feature B] | +1% | +3% | High | Q1 |
| [Feature C] | +3% | +8% | Low | Q2 |

**Total Potential Impact:**
- Conservative (low estimates): [Sum]
- Aggressive (high estimates): [Sum]
- Reality-checked: [Adjusted for overlap, feasibility]

**Confidence Level:**
- [High / Medium / Low]
- Based on: [Historical performance, validation, team track record]

**Dependencies:**
- [Other teams, external factors, resources needed]

Step 3: Evaluate Target Trade-offs (20 minutes)

Use the

tradeoff-evaluation

skill

Assess costs and benefits of aggressive vs. conservative targets:

Framework: Three target levels

Level 1: Conservative Target

• Definition: Achievable with high confidence
• Characteristics:
  • Based on proven tactics
  • Requires minimal risk-taking
  • Accounts for setbacks
• Pro: Likely to hit target, builds credibility
• Con: May leave growth on table, less inspiring

Level 2: Ambitious Target

• Definition: Stretch goal requiring execution excellence
• Characteristics:
  • Requires most initiatives to succeed
  • Some unknowns but reasonable
  • Pushes team but achievable
• Pro: Motivating, meaningful if hit
• Con: 50-70% confidence, some risk

Level 3: Moonshot Target

• Definition: Requires everything to go right + surprises
• Characteristics:
  • All initiatives succeed maximally
  • Plus unexpected wins
  • Low probability but transformative
• Pro: Inspires big thinking
• Con: High failure risk, may demotivate if unrealistic

Evaluate each level:

Questions:

1. Resource cost: What resources required for each level?
2. Opportunity cost: What are we NOT doing to hit this?
3. Risk: What breaks if we miss?
4. Motivation: Does target inspire or overwhelm team?
5. Stakeholder expectation: What's leadership expecting?

Output:

## Target Trade-off Analysis

**Conservative Target:** [Value or % improvement]
- Confidence: 90%+
- Based on: [Proven tactics, historical trends]
- Pros: [List]
- Cons: [List]
- Resource needs: [Description]

**Ambitious Target:** [Value or % improvement]
- Confidence: 60-70%
- Based on: [All planned initiatives + reasonable execution]
- Pros: [List]
- Cons: [List]
- Resource needs: [Description]
- Risk if missed: [Impact]

**Moonshot Target:** [Value or % improvement]
- Confidence: 20-30%
- Based on: [Everything + unexpected wins]
- Pros: [List]
- Cons: [List]
- Resource needs: [Description]
- Risk if missed: [Impact]

**Recommendation:** [Which level to commit to]
- Rationale: [Why this level makes sense]
- Publicly commit to: [May be different from internal stretch]
- Internal stretch: [What team pushes for privately]

Step 4: Set Final Goal (10 minutes)

Synthesize analyses into clear goal statement:

Components of good goal:

1. Metric: Precise definition
2. Target: Specific value or % improvement
3. Timeframe: Clear deadline
4. Confidence: Commitment vs. aspirational
5. Dependencies: What must be true
6. Milestones: Intermediate checkpoints

Goal template:

## Final Goal Statement

**Primary Goal:**
Increase [Metric name] from [Current baseline] to [Target value] by [Date]

**This represents:** [X% improvement]

**Commitment level:** [Committed / Aspirational / Stretch]

**Confidence:** [%]

**Why this target:**
1. [Company contribution reason]
2. [Team capability reason]
3. [Strategic timing reason]

**Key Initiatives:**
1. [Initiative name]: [Expected contribution]
2. [Initiative name]: [Expected contribution]
3. [Initiative name]: [Expected contribution]

**Dependencies:**
- [External dependency 1]
- [External dependency 2]
- [Resource dependency]

**Milestones:**
- Month 1: [Intermediate target]
- Month 2: [Intermediate target]
- Month 3: [Intermediate target]

**Success criteria:**
- Hit target: [What constitutes success]
- Partial success: [What's acceptable]
- Failure: [What triggers re-evaluation]

**Review cadence:**
- [Weekly / Bi-weekly / Monthly] check-ins
- [What triggers goal revision]

Goal-Setting Frameworks

Framework 1: OKR Structure

Objective: Qualitative, inspiring Key Results: Quantitative, measurable

Example:

• Objective: Make our product indispensable for power users
• Key Result 1: Increase WAU from 100K to 120K (20% growth)
• Key Result 2: Increase daily actives from 40K to 50K (25% growth)
• Key Result 3: Improve week-2 retention from 60% to 70%

Scoring: 0-1 scale

• 0.7-1.0 = Success (ambitious targets)
• 0.4-0.6 = Partial progress
• <0.4 = Missed

Framework 2: Committed vs. Aspirational

Committed goals:

• 90%+ confidence
• Resources committed
• What you'll be evaluated on
• Example: "Grow WAU 10%"

Aspirational goals:

• 50-60% confidence
• Stretch targets
• Not penalized for missing
• Example: "Grow WAU 25%"

Framework 3: Input vs. Output Goals

Output goals (results):

• "Increase WAU 20%"
• What you want to achieve
• Ties to company goals

Input goals (activities):

• "Launch 3 major features"
• What you'll do
• Ties to team capacity

Best practice: Set both

• Primary: Output goal
• Supporting: Input goals that should deliver output

Framework 4: Leading Indicator Targets

Why: Leading indicators move before lagging outcomes

Example:

• Lagging: Retention rate (know months later)
• Leading: Activation rate (know immediately)

Set targets for:

• Leading indicators (drive focus)
• Lagging indicators (confirm success)

Common Pitfalls

Pitfall	How to Avoid
Sandbagging (too easy)	Push to ambitious level, not conservative
Moonshot without plan	Ensure initiatives exist to support target
No company alignment	Start with North Star connection
Ignoring historical trends	Reality-check against past performance
No intermediate milestones	Break into monthly/quarterly checkpoints
Not considering seasonality	Adjust for known seasonal effects
Resource mismatch	Validate team capacity to execute

Success Criteria

Goal setting succeeds when:

• Target value/% clearly stated
• Timeframe specific
• Company-level impact articulated
• Team's ability to move metric validated
• Initiatives mapped to target with estimated impacts
• Trade-offs between aggressive/conservative evaluated
• Confidence level honest
• Dependencies and assumptions documented
• Intermediate milestones defined
• Review cadence established
• Stakeholders aligned on goal

Real-World Example: Uber Driver Quality Program

Context

• Metric: Hours driven in 4.8+ rating bucket
• Current: 4.8M hours / 60% of total
• Timeline: Next quarter (Q1)

Step 1: Company Impact (15 min)

Company Goal: Grow Monthly Active Drivers 15% in 2025
Our Contribution: Driver quality → retention → supply growth

Math:
- If quality drivers stay 20% longer
- And recruit 10% more drivers via referrals (quality attracts quality)
- Contributes ~5 percentage points to 15% MAD goal

Strategic Priority: Critical (supply is bottleneck for growth)

Minimum viable: 65% of hours in 4.8+ bucket (5 percentage point improvement)

Step 2: Movability Assessment (20 min)

Team Control:
- Direct: Quality dashboard, driver tips, rating transparency
- Indirect: Driver training, incentives (ops team)
- Outside: Rider behavior, market conditions

Planned Initiatives:

| Initiative | Low Impact | High Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|------------|------------|-------------|------------|----------|
| Enhanced dashboard | +1% | +2% | High | Month 1 |
| Quality tips program | +2% | +4% | Medium | Month 1-2 |
| Referral program | +1% | +3% | Medium | Month 2-3 |
| Driver coaching | +1% | +2% | High | Ongoing |

Total Potential:
- Conservative: +5 percentage points (65% total)
- Aggressive: +11 percentage points (71% total)
- Reality-checked: +7 percentage points (67% total)
  (Accounting for overlap, execution risk)

Confidence: Medium-High (70%)
- Based on: Similar programs in other markets worked
- Risk: Driver adoption lower than expected

Dependencies:
- Ops team for coaching rollout
- Data team for dashboard enhancements

Step 3: Trade-off Analysis (20 min)

Conservative Target: 65% (5 points)
- Confidence: 90%
- Based on: Enhanced dashboard + quality tips (proven tactics)
- Pro: Highly achievable, builds credibility
- Con: Doesn't capitalize on full potential, uninspiring
- Resource: 2 engineers, 1 designer, 1 PM

Ambitious Target: 67% (7 points)
- Confidence: 70%
- Based on: All initiatives, reasonable execution
- Pro: Meaningful improvement, motivating team
- Con: Requires referral program success (moderate risk)
- Resource: +1 growth engineer for referrals

Moonshot Target: 70% (10 points)
- Confidence: 30%
- Based on: Everything working + viral referral growth
- Pro: Transformative if achieved
- Con: Very low probability, may demotivate if unrealistic
- Resource: Full team focus, opportunity cost high

Recommendation: Ambitious (67%)
- Company needs meaningful contribution (5% minimum)
- Team has clear plan for 7% (all initiatives)
- 70% confidence acceptable for OKR
- Publicly commit to 67%, internal stretch to 69%

Step 4: Final Goal (10 min)

PRIMARY GOAL:
Increase hours driven in 4.8+ rating bucket from 60% to 67% by end of Q1 2025

This represents: 7 percentage point improvement

Commitment level: Aspirational OKR (targeting 0.7-1.0 score)

Confidence: 70%

Why this target:
1. Company contribution: Supports 15% MAD growth goal (critical path)
2. Team capability: Have clear initiatives totaling 7-11% potential
3. Strategic timing: Quality program momentum from Q4, capitalize now

Key Initiatives:
1. Enhanced dashboard (Month 1): +1-2 points
2. Quality tips program (Month 1-2): +2-4 points
3. Referral program (Month 2-3): +1-3 points
4. Driver coaching (Ongoing): +1-2 points

Dependencies:
- Ops team partnership for coaching
- Data team dashboard platform (committed)
- Referral incentive budget approved

Milestones:
- Month 1: 62% (dashboard launch, tips program start)
- Month 2: 64% (tips program maturing, referrals launching)
- Month 3: 67% (all initiatives running, compounding effects)

Success criteria:
- Hit 67%: Full success
- 64-66%: Partial success (0.5-0.7 OKR score)
- <64%: Miss (requires post-mortem)

Review cadence:
- Weekly: Quality distribution trends
- Bi-weekly: Initiative progress review
- Month-end: Milestone assessment
- Trigger for revision: <1 point improvement per month

Time to complete: 65 minutes

Goal Calibration Examples

Example 1: Too Conservative

Problem:

• Current: 100K WAU, growing 3% monthly
• Target: 103K in 3 months (3% growth)
• Historical trend: Would hit this doing nothing

Fix:

• Ambitious target: 115K (15% growth = 5% monthly)
• Requires initiatives beyond business-as-usual
• Stretches team but achievable

Example 2: Too Aggressive

Problem:

• Current: 100K WAU, growing 3% monthly
• Target: 200K in 3 months (100% growth)
• No clear path to doubling in 3 months

Fix:

• Reality-check: What's maximum with all initiatives?
• Maybe 125K (25% growth) if everything works
• Set 120K committed, 130K stretch

Example 3: Well-Calibrated

Problem:

• Current: 100K WAU, growing 3% monthly
• Business-as-usual trajectory: 109K in 3 months
• Target: 120K (10% growth above baseline)

Good because:

• Requires planned initiatives to succeed
• Achievable with good execution
• Meaningful above baseline
• Team bought in

Related Skills

This workflow orchestrates these skills:

• north-star-alignment (Step 1)
• proxy-metric-selection (Step 2)
• tradeoff-evaluation (Step 3)

Related Workflows

• metrics-definition: Defines metrics before setting goals
• dashboard-design: Uses goals to set alert thresholds

Time Estimate

Total: 65-75 minutes

• Step 1 (Company impact): 15 min
• Step 2 (Movability): 20 min
• Step 3 (Trade-offs): 20 min
• Step 4 (Final goal): 10 min