name: goal-setting description: Use when establishing targets for defined metrics - validates metric is movable by team, assesses movement needed for company goals, evaluates aggressive vs conservative targets with trade-off analysis

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

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