'AITA for respecting an employee's boundaries, leading to lower raises?'

"AITA for respecting an employee's boundaries, leading to lower raises?"

I manage a small team of two people, "Jack" and "Jill," in a contracts department of a manufacturer. I hired both of them myself as shortly after being promoted to manage the group after my then-boss left, both of my direct reports left -- one because he retired, the other because she got pregnant and decided to be a SAHM.

It was a struggle at first since Jack and Jill were new to the company but we quickly got into what I thought was a good place. They've both worked for me for 2 years. Jack is a single guy, no kids. Jill is also single, but explained to me in her interview (two years ago) that she is a mom to a 5-year-old and work-life balance was extremely important to her.

She said she'd give 100% during the scheduled working hours (8:30 to 5, of which 1/2 hour is lunch) but that she would not work extra hours, wouldn't take work home, wouldn't work weekends, and couldn't travel. I hired her with that understanding.

We have a lot of routine work that can just be done anytime (part of the reason I can respect Jill's boundaries), but sometimes projects come along that require immediate attention.

For example, we're in the Eastern time zone and a contract may come in at 4 pm our time from our West Coast team and they may want it reviewed and turned around that same day, with whoever does the review being available for follow-up into the early evening, as they're trying to close the deal.

Jill can't take those projects because of her strict 5 pm limitation, so I either do them myself, or if Jack is willing and able to do them, he takes some of them. To be clear, I do not dump all of these on Jack; I do my share of after-hours work.

I thought this arrangement was working well. Both Jack and Jill are skilled, competent workers and if they both worked the same hours their output would be almost identical. However, because Jack is willing to put in extra hours (maybe 5-10 hours per week), he gets more done.

I've also sent him on some trips for on-site negotiations with clients that required overnight travel -- which Jill can't do. The result is that, while I hired them at the same salary, Jack has received slightly higher raises and bigger year-end bonuses than Jill, although I didn't think Jill knew this since we don't share this information and I doubt Jack told her.

This all came to a head when I was called into HR after Jill's most recent performance review (to close out her 2nd year). As I did the first time, I rated her "successful." We only have three options - "needs improvement," "successful" and "outstanding." We also are limited overall within the company to no more than 10% "outstanding," since I only have 2 direct reports, I have to lobby just to get even one "outstanding."

The first year I rated them both successful and this year I rated Jack outstanding and Jill successful. If I had to pick between the two, Jack is going to get the higher rating every time because of his willingness to go above and beyond the call when needed.

Jill was upset that she was being "penalized" (her words) for her work boundaries. Somehow she had learned that Jack got bigger raises and bonuses than she did. (Again, I don't know how she learned this; maybe Jack told someone else what he made and this got back to Jill through the grapevine.)

I said, yes, that's because he does more work, because he is willing and able to stay late/work weekends when we're in a crunch, etc. Jill said it was her understanding that she was allowed to work 8:30 to 5 M-F and that's it. I said yes, I agreed to that when she was hired, and she is a good worker and I love having her on the team...

But that shouldn't mean I couldn't reward someone who objectively did more work than she did because they didn't have those same strict boundaries. She asked how she could become "outstanding" and I looked at the HR rep and said, "If we're limited to 10% outstanding, I don't see how Jill would ever be outstanding as long as Jack is here...

....unless she suddenly becomes way more efficient or he suddenly becomes less so, because they do equally good work but he does more of it." The HR rep then said, "I understand," asked Jill to leave, and then reamed me for what I said, saying employee ratings weren't just about "hours worked."

I said I agree, but in this case, their work is the same quality, their clients both like them equally, etc.; I have no basis to rate one over the other EXCEPT the fact that one is willing to put in more time (unpaid, since we're all on salary) and that I would stand by giving Jack bigger raises and bonuses and a higher rating every time.

The HR rep said my bias against a single mom was showing and I said, "What?" and walked out. None of this made any sense to me. AITA?

Here's what people had to say to OP:

Significant_Bid2142 said:

You put yourself in a corner by using "hours worked" as a metric. It should be about output. Jack is clearly going above and beyond and qualifying for "outstanding", while Jill is doing what she's supposed to do, so she's "successful," that's clear as day.

But yeah, you went about it the wrong way by even mentioning hours worked. You should have very concrete metrics for your ratings, how many contracts did they handle, etc.

Moggetti said:

NTA since it sounds like this situation is created by corporate policy. That said, your response needed work. For example, I could imagine a universe where Jill does such incredible work with, say, a new difficult client that she ends up being your outstanding one despite the extra hours Jack puts in.

So I would have said something like this, “Every year is unique. Getting an outstanding is about opportunity and what you do with it. You’re doing great, Jill. I cannot guarantee either you or Jack an outstanding. It will depend on what opportunities you have, and what you do with them when they arise.”

k23_k23 said:

Stop talking about hours. Talk about cases solved, percentage of urgent cases solved.

ForeverNugu said:

This should never have become a comparison between the two employees. It should only be about well-defined metrics and the individual employee's rating against those metrics. If flexibility and willingness to work OT and travel is a measurement for getting an outstanding review, then say that without bringing Jack into it.

Then, you and HR need to work out if that is a reasonable criteria. Explain to HR that availability during those hours is an operational need (if it is) and proceed accordingly.

Digital_Amore said:

NTA. HR is using you. If the only true difference between them is that she works less than they just blamed the bad marks on you. I understand wanting to be home for your kids, especially with how expensive daycare is and crap. I'd start documenting their hours in case she tries to accuse you of favoritism or something because it's clear HR doesn't have your back.

KarmaIssues said:

NTA, you sound like a great boss and all the people complaining here blows my mind. You respected an employee's boundaries while also rewarding the extra work that another employee did. You treated both like adults.

Potential_Shelter624 said:

NTA. In this case "outstanding" means above and beyond, Jill exempted herself from above and beyond expectations and was hired despite that fact. There’s no misunderstanding, only frustration with the real life cause-and-effect.