菜单
Use when designing goal-setting frameworks (OKRs, SMART, Locke-Latham) — covers cadence, level integration, and common failures.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Use when designing or applying progressive discipline — covers the escalating sequence, documentation, gross misconduct exceptions, and consistency.
Use when conducting or scoping workplace investigations — covers intake, scope, interview protocols, evidence, findings, and outcomes.
Use when auditing or designing the candidate's journey — covers communication, time, transparency, and the link between candidate experience and employer brand.
Use when designing career frameworks, level rubrics, IC and management track parity, and promotion processes.
Use when planning organizational change — covers communication architecture, sequencing, manager enablement, and predictable failure modes.
Use when training managers in coaching skills — covers GROW, listening, asking vs. telling, and growth mindset framing.
| name | goal-setting-okrs |
| description | Use when designing goal-setting frameworks (OKRs, SMART, Locke-Latham) — covers cadence, level integration, and common failures. |
Edwin Locke and Gary Latham, decades of research: specific, difficult, accepted goals outperform "do your best" goals on simple-to-moderately-complex tasks. For complex creative tasks, goals have nuanced effects — they can narrow attention and reduce exploration if poorly framed.
Effective goals are:
Originated at Intel (Andy Grove); popularized by Google.
Objective: qualitative, aspirational, time-bounded Key Results: 3–5 measurable outcomes that, if achieved, mean the objective is achieved
Example:
OKRs work when:
Specific / Measurable / Achievable / Relevant / Time-bound. Useful as a checklist; not a complete framework.
Limits:
| Level | Goals |
|---|---|
| Company | 3–5 objectives; aligned to strategy |
| Team | 3–5 OKRs; supports company; team-determined within strategy |
| Individual | 1–3 OKRs; supports team; IC-determined within team |
Cascading goals work when bidirectional: leadership sets direction; teams interpret to local context; individuals choose how to contribute. Pure top-down cascading produces compliance theater.
OKRs should NOT be the rating. They are too gameable, too narrow, and too context-dependent.
Better: OKRs as input to performance discussion. Did the person make progress on what mattered? What did they contribute beyond OKRs? What would have made the goals more useful?
performance-management-systems skillchange-management skillpeople-strategy-roadmap skill