If you are a practitioner of either the Entrepreneurial Operating System (EOS®) or the Rockefeller Habits you will surely be familiar with the concept of Rocks. Derived from an analogy in Stephen Covey’s book First Things First:

“Rocks” are a constrained set of goals, the 3–7 most important priorities, that must be accomplished in the next 90 days. 

The integration of Rocks into my business via EOS®, and the corresponding increase in focus for my entire team, has been nothing short of transformational. 

Rocks.png

However, as the years have progressed I frequently find myself frustrated with some of the typical “best practices”.

For instance:

1. Rocks are not to be updated, started, or stopped during the quarter.

Given the rapid pace of change in terms of the competitive landscape this has stifled our agility on more than one occasion.

Furthermore, if we were to allow ourselves to start new Rocks mid-quarter the capacity for the additional workload would most likely not be available without de-prioritizing another Rock.

2. Rocks are to be SMART, and thus “Done” and “Not Done” are the only possible outcomes. 

That begs the question:

Does measuring the performance of our team based upon Rock completion result in conservatism or lack of stretch?

For my organization, I believe the answer to be Yes. In general, our perception of “attainable” in the SMART acronym limits stretch. If we believe there is a chance that a project will not be completed in 90 days members of our team will push back until they’ve achieved a degree of comfort with their workload. 

The problem is…

Comfort is conservative. We’re not taking the risks that we once were. Often it’s not that we can’t accomplish a particular goal, rather it’s that doing so within the allotted time frame seems too daunting.

“Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars.” — Norman Vincent Peale

3. Rocks can be created without any connection to our vision and/or strategy.

I feel as if, all too often, we end up lacking clarity in regards to how our Rocks align with our overall objectives. Especially departmental Rocks which are isolated from other teams. 

So, what’s the bottom line?

It has become clear to me that the concept of Rocks, at least in regards to the best practices outlined above, is not perfect. The very constraints that encouraged focus in the early days of our implementation have since become restrictive and perhaps even detrimental to our progress.

You might be wondering:

“What do you intend to do about it?”

Based on a recent encounter with Measure What Matters by John Doerr I intend to explore the integration of OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) into our operating system. 

The main goal of OKRs is to connect company, team and personal objectives to measurable results, making people move together in right direction.

While just theory at the moment, I anticipate that the OKR framework will benefit our organization in the following ways:

  1. Agility: Given the option to update, start, or stop OKRs mid-cycle we will be able to more quickly adapt to changing conditions.
  2. Ambition: With the ability to pursue both “Committed” and “Aspirational” OKRs (where 60–70% completion is considered a success) we will be less reluctant to take risks.
  3. Alignment: Having an Objective will help answer the question, “Where do we want to go?” while the Key Results will help answer, “How will we know we’re getting there?”

If you find yourself with similar frustrations in regards to using Rocks for goal setting perhaps OKRs will be a viable solution for you as well. Here are some of the most useful resources I have compiled thus far in various formats to suit your tastes:

Thanks for reading and feel free to share your thoughts on Rocks and OKRs in the comments!

5 Comments