!-- Google Tag Manager -->

Fair and Impartial Judging Policies for Admin Awards

Learn More

Fair and Impartial Judging Policies for Admin Awards

The Admin Awards takes great pride in maintaining a transparent and equitable judging process. In the pursuit of identifying and celebrating outstanding Administrative Professionals, our Judges adhere to a set of stringent policies to ensure a fair evaluation of all Nominees. The following overview illustrates these judging policies, guaranteeing that excellence is the sole criterion for advancement in the competition.

Judging Criteria:

Objective Evaluation: The Admin Awards employs a numeric scoring system for assessing all Nominees. In cases where a nominee receives multiple nominations within the same award category, a cumulative score is calculated, taking into account all submissions in support of that nominee. 

Guided Assessment: Judges evaluate nominees in each award category based on predefined award category criteria. These criteria serve as their guiding principles in determining which Nominees progress in the competition under that award category.

Award Category Alignment Discretion: If a Nominee’s written nomination appears more suited to a different award category, judges may recommend reclassification to ensure that Nominees are placed in the category that best reflects their accomplishments.

Nominee Participation:

Mandatory Presence: Nominees must be confirmed as present at the Awards Gala for them to advance in the competition. This practice is consistent with standard operating procedures for public award programs featuring an awards ceremony. Exceptions may be considered under extenuating circumstances.

Evaluation Process:

Nomination Material: Judges solely rely on the written nomination and any accompanying support materials. It is crucial that nominations provide substantive information to help judges comprehend why a Nominee deserves unique recognition.

AI-Generated Nominations: Judges are trained to identify nominations that seem to originate from AI platforms and contain general, verbose content. Such nominations are scored poorly.

Supervisor’s Feedback: Nominations submitted by a nominee’s direct supervisor or those that reflect their sentiments carry more weight in the evaluation process. However, it is possible for a Nominee to advance even without direct supervisor participation.

Company-Specific Considerations:

Multiple Nominees: Companies with multiple Nominees have the opportunity to see multiple Nominees advance to Finalist and Winner status in the competition.

Irrelevant Factors: Judges focus solely on the achievements of the nominees and do not take into account the status or reputation of their leaders or organizations when making final decisions. Nominees from organizations of all sizes, both for-profit and nonprofit, have an equal opportunity to win the Admin Awards and do.

Sponsorship Neutrality:

No Influence on Outcomes: It is imperative to emphasize that sponsoring the Admin Awards does not exert any influence on the competition’s outcome. A Nominee’s victory at the ‘Good as Gold’ Gala is entirely independent of their company’s level of sponsorship, such as purchasing tickets or tables for the event. Such enthusiasm from organizations merely demonstrates support for the Nominee but does not impact the final result.

The Admin Awards stands committed to upholding these rigorous judging policies to ensure a level playing field for all Nominees. Our dedication to impartiality and merit-based recognition remains unwavering, making the Admin Awards a true celebration of administrative excellence trusted for over 12 years by the country’s leading organizations.

Questions? Please contact us at [email protected].