Yeah it was clear, it was because the total company profit didn't meet the internal target, but that hadn't happened ever in the history of the company, so people were surprised.

Was it because the target was set unrealistically high or because the company underperformed?

Does it really make a difference? Seems like it should be set fairly high, if your company is aiming for growth, and sometimes growth is slower for various reasons

> Does it really make a difference?

In my view, it does. Maybe this was a good company with reasonable management who set realistic targets. Maybe it was a not-so-good company, someone in management saw the line item for bonuses and decided to "solve the issue" by setting a target he was sure would not be achievable, just so they could reduce payroll costs with minimal hassle. I am sure both happen in the real world.

Pretty sure my old job did this. People on programs that were successful would get a little bonus. This ended up changing to “every program across every sector must meet all business goals for bonuses to be paid.” That made it impossible to get a bonus when some programs were experimental or R&D type things that were kind of expected to run on a deficit for a while.

The company underperformed.

If the target had been hit every quarter for a few years, if anything it was set too low.

Depends how scalable it is. For some products you need to accurately predict how much you can produce and sell. So targets are a matter of everyone executing their part on schedule.