We need more alignment on impact metrics

I love goal-aligned annual job reviews. Is that an unpopular opinion?

Aspirationally, at least, the clarity is fortifying: The CEO sets out her business goals for the year, the VP adopts several or more and adds division-specific details; the director further refines and focuses team strategies; and individual contributors define their tactics to support and execute.

It is a quintessentially corporate process, and not one usually recalled fondly. And absolutely it is far from perfect, but what are the alternatives? Performance reviews that are unanchored to larger organizational plans and which follow no consistent path, purpose, cadence, expectations or process? Not great either, and yet very common.

Coordination of effort (what are our priorities and who is doing what) is key to team performance. Which means without clear, well-communicated and cascading goals, a lot of people and organizations flail and fail even when blessed with smart people and good intentions.

Goal setting, sharing and coordination is fundamental to any collaborative effort - including between organizations. Just one example: Journalism is, as of late, full of multi-layered networks of national funders, service organizations, community foundations, researchers, newsrooms, reporters and communities.

And when grants are disbursed, impact measurements are expected. A reporter in a grant-supported beat has goals to meet for their editor, their editor to the publisher, the publisher to the funder(s), the funders to their CEO, and the CEO to their board.

That reality is inescapable, but is it working? As a process-optimist, it feels like the whole system could benefit from the focused application of OKRs: Objectives and Key Results. These are not just goals and metrics - they answer the ”what” are we hoping to accomplish, “how” we will do it, and ”what” are our measurements of success.

Here is a very general example that skips some layers to demonstrate the concept:

North Star/Funding Program Goal: Increase informed civic participation by making high-quality local information more accessible, trustworthy, and useful to the community.

Foundation OKR

Objective: Strengthen informed civic participation by ensuring residents have equitable access to reliable, locally relevant information.

Key Results:

1. Fund and support at least X local information projects that demonstrably address community-identified information gaps.
2. Increase the percentage of residents who report feeling “well-informed about local issues” by Y% in annual community surveys.
3. Support grantees in reaching underserved or historically marginalized audiences, with at least Z% of funded projects explicitly designed for those communities.
4. Establish shared impact metrics across grantees to assess information access and civic usefulness, not just reach.

Nonprofit Newsroom OKR

Objective: Deliver trusted local journalism that helps residents understand and act on issues affecting their daily lives.

Key Results:

1. Identify and prioritize 3–5 core community information needs annually using listening sessions, surveys, or community partners.
2. Produce consistent, service-oriented reporting addressing those needs, with at least X% of coverage tied directly to identified gaps.
3. Demonstrate increased civic usefulness by:
   • Tracking how content is used (e.g., referrals, follow-up questions, event attendance), not just pageviews.
4. Build or strengthen partnerships with at least N community organizations to extend reach and trust beyond traditional audiences.

Individual Local Journalist OKR

Objective: Produce community-centered reporting that measurably helps residents better understand and navigate local issues.

Key Results:

1. Report and publish X stories or explainers per quarter explicitly designed to answer community-identified questions (e.g., “How does this affect me?”).
2. Engage directly with the community by:
   • Participating in Y listening activities (forums, office hours, events, surveys).
   • Incorporating community questions or feedback into at least Z stories.
3. Create at least one recurring or reusable information format (e.g., FAQ, guide, timeline, resource map) that improves clarity and accessibility.
4. Collaborate with editors and partners to track at least two indicators of civic usefulness, such as:
   • Follow-up questions received
   • Referrals from community organizations
   • Evidence of residents taking next steps (attending meetings, accessing services)

To many, that feels painfully over-engineered. But OKRs have merit:

1. Transparency: Everyone's goals are public. 
2. Explicit Linking: One person or team's Objective directly supports the Key Results of the layer above them.
3. Improved Planning: If a task or project doesn't align with a Key Result, it can be abandoned or deprioritized.
4. Continuous Refinement: Having structure and alignment allows monitoring and adjustment within or between organizations.
5. Built-in Success Metrics: The variables needed for the quarterly or annual impact reports are defined in advance and write themselves throughout the year.

Structure isn’t the enemy of creativity and mission-driven work, it’s the guardian of it. As journalism grows into its more diverse and interdependent future, formal and shared goal-alignment is essential. By defining the 'what' and the 'why' through a process like OKRs, we create the accountability that funders and partners need, while leaving newsrooms and staff the autonomy to focus on communities, not end-of-year paperwork.