Originally Posted by
WineCountryUA
From what has been posted on FT appears they were company-wide metrics so there was little individual linkage, more of a group/ overall team effort. But that is pretty traditional for larger workgroups, harder have individual objective metrics and there be significant costs in creating such a system. Individual metrics are more common for specific workgroups like sales or senior / execitive levels.
It's a mistake as it allows sub-par performers to hide behind the efforts of the good performers (and I know first hand it's not handled like this in every company). We all know there's a huge variation in performance within UA, we've seen the 'stars' and we've seen the bad apples. If all of them get bonuses on the backs of the 'stars' then there's zero performance incentive in it and if anything it just is seen as part of a salary.
Now, the proposed lottery wouldn't really have fixed that as it would still not consider individual performance. It was obviously a faux pas because apparently within UA's culture this was always going to be seen as a veiled salary cut. From a customer point of view - but even a management point of view - it sure would be great if those workers doing right by the customer and the company get extra rewards.