Hmm, I hate this concept of "bonuses" because in my experience this isn't really how things work.

However, I do think the incentives internally probably were structured in a way to encourage this change, and I doubt anyone is being seen as being "more successful" due to a rollback.

> Hmm, I hate this concept of "bonuses" because in my experience this isn't really how things work.

You're right. They're going to pay themselves the bonus regardless of this debacle.

Please explain to me the process by which executives decide their own bonus.

There are directors/executives that sit on compensation committees that also wind up deciding their own pay. And if you decide your own pay it isn't much of a leap to also decide bonus amounts and criteria.

Here's an article from Harvard Law Review about a lawsuit over this - you might be interested in the paragraphs in the "Shareholder Waivers" section: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/09/18/setting-directors...

Some quotes: waive a shareholder’s right to sue the directors for violating their duty of loyalty regarding setting their own pay and For directors setting their own pay, the ruling suggested that a blanket waiver etc.

You put that much more eloquently than I did.

Consolidating, strategical changes like these sure are introduced and orchestrated by the top, not by the lower/mid level management who want to be noticed.

I know this is going to get a lot of hate here, but sometimes I wonder whether these execs consider anything besides their fat bonuses or anything which is not related to their bonuses?

I think it’s probably already a fuck-up of bonus limiting proportions.