My concern is that not all actions are equal, but the recognition seems to be.
My question is do I get more "points" for fixing the thread dispatcher in the kernel...or do I get just as many for helping you understand how to upload a file to Sharepoint?
That's where you can disenfranchise people. However, I like the idea and to me it is a good step in implementing 360 feedback as part of a review and bonus allocation.
IMHO, combine peer feedback as an equal component of bonus allocation along with management assessment and I think then you have a winner.
"Everyone in the company sees [your] plaudits and can pile on more unicorns if they agree that [you] did an awesome job."
The only person who will be impressed by you helping Bob upload to SharePoint is Bob. Total score: 1-3 unicorns.
Every engineer will be impressed that you fixed the thread dispatcher. Total score: 1-3 unicorns * # of engineers.
I've worked Unicorn in to my daily workflow. I can't say everyone (or even anyone) else uses my system, but Unicorn is my first stop of the day when I sit down at my desk. I look over all the unicorns from the previous day, distribute points as I see fit, and move on with my day. Rinse and repeat daily.
It takes all of ~2-3 minutes out of my day. I can see how this technique wouldn't scale well once employee numbers get too big, but it seems to work well at ~100 employees.
Votes are also private, including how many votes something has received (except to the person being rewarded). I really haven't noticed any gaming of the system.
The biggest part of the reward is recognition. The money is nice, but as I said, no one is retiring based on it.
There’s an email/newsletter that’s auto-generated every few weeks that summarizes what’s going on and makes it easy to remember to spread some unicoin around.