When Everyone Is Award-Winning, Is Anyone Really Outstanding?
For the past 30 years, I have had a front-row seat to the evolution of Ghana’s media and business landscape. I have watched industries emerge, companies rise and fall, entrepreneurs build remarkable enterprises, and professionals dedicate decades of their lives to achieving excellence in their fields.
Over those same three decades, I have also watched the rapid growth of another industry — awards.
Perhaps because of what I have seen from my vantage point, I have deliberately stayed away from receiving awards, both personally and as a company. It is not because I do not appreciate recognition. On the contrary, I believe excellence deserves to be celebrated. But I have long held reservations about many of the processes through which awards are conceived, organized, and bestowed.
The only exception I can readily recall was in 2006 when our station received a prestigious award from the BBC in Nairobi, Kenya. What made that recognition different was not the trophy itself. It was the credibility of the institution behind it, the rigor associated with its processes, and the confidence one could have in the integrity of the recognition.
Unfortunately, that confidence is not always present today.
The recent public backlash over awards conferred on some government ministers and political appointees has once again exposed an uncomfortable truth about Ghana’s growing awards culture: many citizens are no longer questioning only the recipients; they are questioning the credibility of those doing the awarding.
The controversy has generated significant public discussion. While some have defended the recognition of public officials, many others have asked a simple but important question: What qualifies some of these organizations to determine who Ghana’s best-performing ministers are?
It is a fair question.
In fact, it is the same question that should be asked about many of the award schemes that have sprung up across the country over the years.
Almost every week, there is an awards ceremony somewhere in Ghana. There are awards for business leadership, customer service, entrepreneurship, governance, education, healthcare, innovation, media excellence, digital influence, philanthropy, and public service. The list continues to grow.
Recognition is not the problem.
Every healthy society should celebrate achievement and encourage excellence. Genuine awards can motivate individuals and institutions to perform better. They can establish standards and inspire others to pursue greatness.
The challenge begins when recognition becomes detached from credibility.
Over the years, I have observed the emergence of awards schemes organized by individuals and institutions with little or no demonstrated expertise in the sectors they seek to evaluate. Some have no history of research. Others have no track record in performance assessment. Many possess no recognized authority in the industries they claim to judge.
Yet they confidently assume the role of determining excellence.
This concern becomes particularly serious when public officials become recipients.
A minister’s performance is not something that can be measured casually. It requires an understanding of policy implementation, institutional reform, service delivery, budget execution, economic impact and measurable outcomes.
Such evaluations require expertise.
They require data.
They require transparency.
And they require independence.
Yet many awards schemes provide little information about how winners are selected. Detailed methodologies are rarely published. Evaluation criteria are often vague. Independent verification is uncommon. Judging panels are sometimes unknown to the public.
Citizens are simply expected to trust the outcome.
But trust is not automatic.
Trust must be earned.
That is why the recent controversy surrounding awards for government appointees has resonated so strongly with the public. Ghanaians were not merely asking whether the recipients deserved recognition. They were asking whether the organizations granting the awards possessed sufficient credibility to make such judgments in the first place.
Who conducted the evaluation?
What metrics were used?
How were competing officials assessed?
What evidence supports the conclusions?
Can the findings withstand independent scrutiny?
These are not unreasonable questions.
Indeed, there are questions that should accompany every award scheme that seeks public legitimacy.
Another issue that cannot be ignored is the growing perception that some awards have become commercial enterprises rather than instruments for recognizing excellence.
There is a widespread belief that sponsorships, ticket purchases, corporate relationships, advertising commitments and financial considerations sometimes influence recognition. Whether every such perception is accurate is beside the point. The fact that many people believe it is enough to damage confidence.
Once credibility becomes questionable, even deserving recipients become subjects of public skepticism.
Awards that should inspire admiration begin to attract ridicule.
Recognition that should enhance reputation instead generates suspicion.
The tragedy is that this trend also undermines the efforts of genuinely credible awards institutions that invest time and resources into research, verification, and independent assessment.
Not all awards are the same.
Some organizations have earned the right to confer recognition because they have built credibility over many years. Their processes are transparent. Their criteria are clear. Their assessments are rigorous. Their conclusions are defensible.
Unfortunately, these credible institutions now share the same space with countless others whose primary qualification appears to be their ability to organize a ceremony.
The result is an inflation of excellence.
If everyone is receiving awards for being the best, the most outstanding, the most influential or the most impactful, then the meaning of those distinctions begins to disappear.
When everyone is extraordinary, no one truly stands out.
The stakes become even higher when government officials are involved.
Public office is not a private achievement. Ministers and political appointees are custodians of public trust. Their performance affects the lives of millions of citizens. Recognition of their work should therefore be held to a far higher standard than many private-sector awards.
Any organization seeking to evaluate public officials should be able to demonstrate expertise, independence, methodological rigor, and institutional credibility.
Not every organization can make that claim.
That is why public officials themselves must exercise caution. Before accepting recognition, they should ask important questions about the credibility of the institution offering it.
Not every award is worth receiving.
Sometimes declining an award may do more for one’s reputation than accepting it.
As a country, we need a broader conversation about standards in the awards industry. We need greater transparency. We need clearer methodologies. We need stronger scrutiny. And perhaps most importantly, we need to distinguish between organizations that have earned the authority to recognize excellence and those that have merely acquired the ability to organize an event.
Awards matter.
They influence public perception. They shape reputations. They define role models. They help identify excellence.
But recognition itself must first earn recognition.
After three decades of observing both achievement and the machinery that seeks to celebrate it, I remain convinced of one thing: the true value of an award is not determined by the elegance of the ceremony, the size of the trophy, or the publicity that surrounds it.
Its value is determined by the credibility of the institution behind it.
And in today’s Ghana, that may be the most important award of all.
