> think you'd have to be pretty dense to not understand the intention of the KPI: set lofty goals and try to get there. So, hypothetically if I busted my ass f

> think you'd have to be pretty dense to not understand the intention of the KPI: set lofty goals and try to get there. So, hypothetically if I busted my ass for three months straight to hit 100%, just to be told "Oh, your goals were set too low, so here's more work", what incentive at that point do I have to work even harder? The new target's 80% was my last target's 100%, which I struggled to hit (because as you said, these goals are lofty). So if I bust my ass even more, do even more overtime, what do I get then? "Your goals were set too low, so here's more work." Do I just continue this until I burn out? Or do I hit 80 of my target so my workload doesn't spiral out of control, and I get exactly the same bonus? > I mean, this company literally failed (from the sounds of it) and people here are blaming the CEOs KPIs versus the employees who intentionally work less to game the system. Strange. Employees gaming their KPIs is a reaction to and a direct result of the CEO's "if you hit 100%, you didn't work hard enough" policy. CEOs using constantly moving targets and increasingly unrealistic expectations to extract every last drop of productivity out of their employees is met with an equally maximizing reaction: employees find a maximum amount of time and energy they can spend such that the status quo is preserved and the bar doesn't move as high next time. I would bet KPIs were not the main reason that company went under. Obviously we don't have specifics, and companies rarely fail for one reason. I didn't blame the CEO for the company going under either - I simply pointed out the perverse incentive.