Considering recognition at work to be a matter of justice imposes a new grammar upon the criteria we use to assess and judge people’s work. In many respects this runs contrary to the principle of equality as a point of reference and ideal standard for harmonious coexistence, instead prioritising individual merit based on performance. Focusing on the intrinsic characteristics of each individual, this approach seeks to elevate both what they do and who they are, identifying the features which set them apart. This is why evaluations play such an important role in recognition at work, or, to be precise, why they are one of the major sources of absence of recognition. What is the scope of the evaluation? What are the methods, or the results? How do we define performance, where and when does it begin? What value do we accord to a job well done? What about seniority, loyalty, status or level of qualification? In order to examine these issues about recognition at work, this article will draw upon the data produced by a vast survey conducted within ten large companies in the metalworking, insurance and service sectors, including responses from employees in a diverse array of posts with very different degrees of responsibility.