Bonus Structure Gameability is narrowly tied bonuses get gamed; people optimize the metric, not the underlying goal. It sits in the Incentives dimension (INC) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-INC-0042, within the Corporate Perverse Pattern family. The core principle: narrowly tied bonuses get gamed; people optimize the metric, not the underlying goal. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
Scientific Definition
Narrowly tied bonuses get gamed; people optimize the metric, not the underlying goal.
Plain-English Definition
Narrowly tied bonuses get gamed; people optimize the metric, not the underlying goal.
Feynman Explanation
Pay for the indicator, get the indicator. And nothing else.
Core Principle
Narrowly tied bonuses get gamed; people optimize the metric, not the underlying goal.
Mechanisms
Pending editorial review.
Narrowly tied bonuses get gamed; people optimize the metric, not the underlying goal.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Comp narrowness predicts gaming.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Inputs (Triggers)
Pending editorial review.
Outputs (Behaviors)
Pending editorial review.
Behavioral Signature
Pay for the indicator, get the indicator. And nothing else.
Examples
- Sandbagged sales, padded quarterly closes.
- Comp narrowness predicts gaming.
Pending editorial review.
Original analysis from The Incentives Lab — how this element behaves inside real payoff structures.
Why this element matters to incentive design
The mistake with this element is treating it as irrationality. It is almost always a rational response to a payoff nobody wrote down. The mechanism underneath it is straightforward: narrowly tied bonuses get gamed; people optimize the metric, not the underlying goal. You can recognize it in the field by its signature: pay for the indicator, get the indicator. And nothing else. Every element in the Incentives dimension changes the perceived payoff of an action before the action happens, which is exactly where incentive design has leverage.
How it gets exploited
Left undesigned, comp narrowness predicts gaming. It is amplified whenever comp narrowness predicts gaming. Inside organizations that shows up as comp narrowness predicts gaming. The pattern is the same one Goodhart's Law describes: the measurable proxy attracts the effort, and the purpose behind it quietly loses funding.
How the Lab designs around it
The redesign move is to composite, lagged, peer-relative comp. The leverage is not in explaining the behavior to people. It is in changing what the behavior earns.
Famous Experiments
Pending editorial review.
Design Principles
- Composite, lagged, peer-relative comp.
Measurement Approaches
Pending editorial review.
Evidence
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
The Perverse Incentive Lens™
How this behavior is exploited — and how to redesign around it.
- Composite, lagged, peer-relative comp.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Interactive Mini Network
Click any neighbor to re-center the graph and follow the threads of connection.
Knowledge Graph Neighbors
Auto-linked to the rest of the Human Behavior Taxonomy by family, domain, dimension, and shared keywords.
Earn-outs designed to retain founders often demotivate the team they bought.
Funnels rewarded for new logos under-invest in retention and lifetime value.
Cuts that lift margin this quarter erode product quality and brand equity over years.
Re-hires often get raises larger than internal promotions.
Pay tied to stock price encourages short-term price management.
CEO pay tied to size rewards deal-making even when acquisitions destroy value.
Sales forecasts under-set to ensure attainment bonus.
Capital tied to growth rates funds unsustainable scaling and unit-economics denial.
Managers measured by team size grow teams beyond need.
Awards reward visible novelty; quiet excellence goes unrecognized.
Innovation programs designed to signal innovation, not to produce it.
Managers hoard talent; cross-team mobility dies.
Where Bonus Structure Gameability is cited in the corpus
Essays, field guides, and diagnostics from The Incentives Lab that apply this element.
- Field guideIncentives: definition, types, examples
The parent field guide for this element.
- ReferenceThe laws of incentives
Goodhart, Campbell, and the Cobra Effect.
- EssayThe Perverse Incentives Hiding in Your KPIs
The measurement failure mode for this element.
- ReferenceThe Periodic Table of Human Behavior
The full 1,267-element map this page belongs to.
- ReferenceThe incentive glossary
Definitions for every mental model, bias, and fallacy in the corpus.
Questions about Bonus Structure Gameability
- What is Bonus Structure Gameability?
- Bonus Structure Gameability is narrowly tied bonuses get gamed; people optimize the metric, not the underlying goal. It sits in the Incentives dimension (INC) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-INC-0042, within the Corporate Perverse Pattern family. The core principle: narrowly tied bonuses get gamed; people optimize the metric, not the underlying goal. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
- What is an example of Bonus Structure Gameability?
- Comp narrowness predicts gaming. The Incentives Lab catalogs everyday, organizational, and historical instances of this element on its Human Behavior Taxonomy™ page (HBT-INC-0042).
- How is Bonus Structure Gameability exploited?
- Comp narrowness predicts gaming.
- How do you design around Bonus Structure Gameability?
- Composite, lagged, peer-relative comp.
- Which behavioral dimension does Bonus Structure Gameability belong to?
- Bonus Structure Gameability is classified in the Incentives dimension (INC) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™, family "Corporate Perverse Pattern", class "Perverse Incentive". Its permanent identifier is HBT-INC-0042 and its evidence grade is C.