There is an increasing trend of media and publication companies blitz scaling businesses and its leaders with awards and rankings. What is concerning here is the utter disregard for due merits in many of these recognitions. In today’s fast-paced and competitive business world, media and publication houses undoubtedly play a significant role in shaping public opinion and influencing the perception of success. However, it is disturbing that only a few that follow best practices in the selection criteria compromising on the diligence needed to support the due merits. This practice not only undermines the credibility of accolades itself but also raises questions about the integrity of the due process and its proponents.
A recent discussion with a CEO of an organization revealed that they had received close to 200 nominations in the past year, most of which they declined. Upon careful review of these recognitions, they could find little merit in the proposition of nominations. In these approaches, other than their own commercial considerations, these recognitions lacked accredited methods and credible assessments to support their selection criteria. Many of these sales pitches, were based on offers, including publishing company and leadership profiles, assumingly doctored editorials, a suggested ranking, and a social media blitz.
Interestingly, on the contrary they had not provided much information about their evaluation process to understand its tangible criteria for selecting the accessed entity. Some of these offers included an award or a preferred ranking, but on a barter basis with the demand of a price tag. Ultimately the CEO understood that these publications and companies thrive on paid recognition from those wanting to win accolades with or without merits. It’s troubling to observe that this has become the new normal, with businesses and individuals accepting these practices. Not many eyeballs are rolling on these malpractices. Some even argue that these are essential evils of today’s market practices that you have to live with to support your brand.
Herein, it is important to delve into the negative implications of this disturbing trend and rethink this dereliction from best practices. Despite its harsh realities, many people have accepted and continue to live with such sinister practices. Instead of discouraging this behaviour and demanding responsible and thorough evaluation processes, the current ecosystem fails to address this.
Several reasons and factors are undermining genuine business interests:
Superficial Recognition:
These companies increasingly prioritize quantity over quality when recognizing businesses and their leaders. Their objective is to find ways and means to attract more people by emphasizing superficial credentials rather than actual achievements. Instead of having just one or two holistic criteria for business excellence, these recognitions involve multiple categories, which seem to serve the purpose of upending their commercial goal.
For instance, a recent award featured nine sub-categories in the CEO Leadership category, which seems excessive. The primary purpose of adding multiple award categories appears to be financial gain to accommodate more people, as each award comes with a price tag or requires a financial commitment from the awardee.
Rushed Evaluations:
The rush to award and rank individuals without thorough evaluation has resulted in superficial endorsements of certain people’s achievements, which is baffling. Besides their aggressive sales pitches, at times, they are so sophisticated in their approaches that this may not even ring a bell about their motives and purposes. The more significant issue with such approaches is that they undermine deserving leaders’ merits and contributions while diluting the ideal accolades’ significance.
Lack of Due Diligence:
The very process of due diligence is compromised and often tweaked to achieve a commercial objective, which ultimately impacts people’s trust in such accolades. Many media and publication companies rely on self-reported data or superficial research, leading to inaccurate portrayals of success. This lack of thorough investigation can create a false image of achievement, potentially misleading the public and undermining the credibility of the media companies and the awards they bestow.
Impact on Deserving Leaders:
Another issue is its impact on those business leaders with merits. While some may benefit from the recognition, the apparent blitz scaling of awards and rankings has adverse effects, such as a lack of credibility in the assessment process and may shy people with merits from participating even in deserving recognitions.
Genuine accomplishments may be overshadowed by the noise of inflated accolades, making it difficult for deserving leaders to stand out. The constant pursuit of these accolades may divert attention from meaningful business endeavours, potentially leading to a culture of self-promotion rather than genuine innovation and impact.
Erosion of Public Trust:
Media and publication companies must know that they play a crucial role in shaping public perception and providing reliable information. However, the rapid scaling of business leaders with little due diligence erodes confidence in the media industry. When the public realizes reality, this perception slowly awakens people. Many have already started questioning these awards and rankings about their flimsy evaluations.
This growing skepticism and the loss of credibility is a matter of concern. This erosion of trust can have far-reaching consequences, affecting media companies and the public’s perception of companies and business leaders and their achievements.
The trend of media companies blitz scaling business leaders with awards and rankings and the clandestine collaboration of businesses in facilitating this needs attention. Regulators should monitor these practices to prevent companies from falling prey to such superficial recognitions.
These companies are resorting to unethical practices that must be evaded. They must understand that in the long term, such actions undermine the credibility of these accolades, dilute or demean the significance of genuine achievements, and erode trust in the recognition process. Media and publication companies must prioritize responsible evaluation processes that emphasize quality over quantity. By doing so, they can regain the public’s trust and ensure that recognition is given to business leaders based on their actual merits, fostering a culture of genuine excellence and innovation.
The risk of undervaluing true excellence when quantity is valued over quality in recognizing business leaders is wrong. When quantity is prioritized, there is a tendency to overlook or downplay the exceptional achievements and contributions of individuals who have genuinely demonstrated excellence. When true excellence is undervalued, it can discourage individuals from striving for extraordinary performance.
Suppose recognition is primarily based on the number of awards or rankings obtained rather than their work’s impact and quality. In that case, talented leaders may feel demotivated to go above and beyond. Companies and individuals with deserving accolades think they will have much inferior merits when ranked lower or amongst those; and often people and companies that don’t come from the same pedigree are featured. It is painful to see such rigged situations that can hinder innovation, creativity, and the pursuit of excellence in the business world.
Another critical point is the case of exceptional leaders, who play a crucial role in driving innovation, setting high standards, and inspiring others to reach their full potential. In this context, if their achievements are not adequately recognized and rewarded whilst others with lower credentials are given priority, it can lead to a lack of motivation and a missed chance to learn from their successes and replicate their best practices.
Recognizing real distinction is not just about rewarding individuals; it also serves as a source of inspiration and role models for aspiring leaders. When exceptional leaders are undervalued, it can create a scarcity of positive examples and role models for others to emulate. This can hurt the development of future leaders and the overall growth and progress of the business community.
In conclusion, undervaluing true excellence where quantity or other considerations are valued over quality in recognition processes can lead to missed opportunities for growth, loss of market credibility and expertise, diminished reputation and prestige of recognition, and a lack of role models and inspiration. Recognizing genuine excellence and ensuring that the evaluation process considers the impact, achievements, and quality of work demonstrated by businesses and leaders is crucial.