The difference is that anyone can buy stock in their publicly held employer (with a bonus or otherwise) and have the same incentive. RSUs force the incentive to exist (instead of directly rewarding performance), but the balance between RSU growth as reward and ability to influence RSU growth may be negligible except at VP levels and above. If I am reasonably certain that keeping a backend service running within SLA is unlikely to meaningfully move the stock price I certainly won't be putting in extra hours or weekends to achieve it. Additionally, it forces a minimum risk on the risk-reward calculation made by an employee.
Whereas banks and sales teams have long given bonuses because it's tractable to assign value to individual contributions, I think bonuses are the generally preferred incentive when tractable. Making partner is roughly the VP-level equivalent of RSU grants where company performance starts being tied to individual performance.
Where this becomes a bit more evident is that RSU refreshes are almost always based on performance review, like bonuses.
I see RSUs as a cheaper/more flexible compensation for employers and a tax reduction strategy for employees (both worthwhile in their own right).
Whereas banks and sales teams have long given bonuses because it's tractable to assign value to individual contributions, I think bonuses are the generally preferred incentive when tractable. Making partner is roughly the VP-level equivalent of RSU grants where company performance starts being tied to individual performance.
Where this becomes a bit more evident is that RSU refreshes are almost always based on performance review, like bonuses.
I see RSUs as a cheaper/more flexible compensation for employers and a tax reduction strategy for employees (both worthwhile in their own right).