I'm not sure that PHB is outsmarting Dilbert, seems more like they've hit a correlation != causation, and the PHB still manages to present it as causation but the other way round to how Dilbert was trying to present the info.
The words in the last panel seem unnecessary, otherwise spot on observation.
After suffering the inhumanity of many performance reviews, Ingmar's comment rings true.
Studies show, bonus schemes are a destructive cancer to most companies, whereas profit sharing schemes are not. Bonus schemes discourage sharing and cooperation, rewarding the mean gene they encourage profitable-lines hoarding, to the detriment of the organization as a whole. By profitable-lines hoarding, I mean, an individual will keep all the best clients, efficient techniques to themselves, even if they have too much work to do, while other teams will go idle and drain the profit from the company. Profit sharing is in essence a bonus scheme, but with focus on the individual's effort for the good of the whole organization, it matters less who does the work, as long as the work is done and a profit made. The move from bonus the profit share will be resisted by those: on large bonuses, and resistant to change. Some method of rewarding good ideas, may be needed, like a royalty payment or publicity in the product's documentation.
Dilbert's comapny is typical, in that the manager/PHB only has three or four reports, I expect there are managers with no reports.
How can anyone suggest Wally doesn't "perform"? If performance is measured by retaining your job, Wally is WAY more efficient than Dilbert or Alice. They expend huge amounts of work effort to keep their jobs, whereas Wally....well, Wally is Wally, eh?