The Work May Be the Same. The Conditions Aren't.

Two people in the same organization are evaluated against similar expectations.

One is consistently described as proactive. They make decisions, resolve issues before they escalate and rarely need much involvement from their manager. The other is seen as less independent. Their work takes longer to move forward, decisions require further discussion, and their manager regularly needs to step in.

Their manager responds accordingly. The first person is given more autonomy and fewer approval steps. The second receives closer oversight, more frequent check-ins and greater involvement in decisions. Neither response is necessarily unreasonable.

But the two people were not working under the same conditions to begin with.

The first works in a team where responsibilities are clear, information is accessible and most dependencies can be resolved directly. The second works across several teams with competing priorities. Decisions depend on people who are not always available, responsibilities are less settled and moving forward often requires agreement from others.

Both are expected to demonstrate ownership. For one, that often means making a decision and moving forward. For the other, it can mean spending days creating the conditions in which a decision becomes possible.

Over time, the second person is asked to seek approval for decisions they previously made independently. What began as closer support has introduced another step between identifying a problem and acting on it.

At the next evaluation, the original assessment appears even more convincing. One person continues to make decisions quickly. The other frequently waits for confirmation before moving forward.

Perhaps the initial assessment was accurate. The two may genuinely differ in capability, judgment or experience.

The organization has more evidence supporting its original judgment. And fewer opportunities to see what the second person would decide without the additional oversight.