What Actually Happens During Award Judging?

Most people only ever see one part of an awards programme: the winners being announced.

What they don’t see is everything that happens before that moment.

The judging process itself is something most people never experience firsthand, and honestly, I think many would be surprised by just how much work, discussion, debate, and care goes into it.

At the ICMA, judging isn’t something we take lightly. From building judging panels and managing conflicts of interest, to anonymous scoring, category debates, and final discussions around gold, silver, and bronze, there’s an enormous amount happening behind the scenes long before the award ceremony arrives.

And while every awards programme operates differently, I thought it would be interesting to pull back the curtain a little on how our judging process actually works, what judges are really looking for, and why maintaining integrity within the process matters so much to us.

What Most People Don’t See

People often imagine a handful of judges quickly scrolling through entries and making a few decisions over coffee.

The reality is the complete opposite.

Our judges volunteer a huge amount of time. They familiarise themselves with entries, score independently, leave detailed comments, attend discussions, debate outcomes, and revisit categories multiple times before winners are finalised.

By the time a winner is announced, those entries have usually been seen by around 20 sets of eyeballs.

That’s before you even consider the work happening behind the scenes to organise the judging itself.

So, How Does the Process Actually Work?

Once entries close, we quickly create judging panels for each category.

That sounds simple, but it’s one of the most important parts of the entire process.

We carefully build panels to make sure there’s:

• a mix of disciplines

• geographic spread

• varying industry experience

• and, crucially, no conflicts of interest

We also make sure judges aren’t reviewing work connected to themselves, their company, or previous employers.

The first stage involves anonymous scoring and comments through our judging platform. Judges assess entries independently, and the platform aggregates scores to create the shortlist.

Then we do something a lot of people don’t realise. We repeat the process with an entirely new set of judges.

Fresh eyes. Fresh opinions. Fresh perspectives.

Only after that do we move into the final judging discussions, where panels debate the shortlisted work and decide the gold, silver, and bronze winners.

And those discussions can get incredibly intense.

Judging Isn’t About “Picking Favourites”

One thing I’ve learned from running awards is that judging great work is rarely straightforward.

People imagine it’s simply: “This one’s better than that one.”

But it almost never works like that.

Within the same category, you’re often comparing completely different types of work, different budgets, different objectives, different audiences, and different creative approaches.

A good judge understands that.

The best judges aren’t just people who know good work when they see it - they understand context, nuance, and what success actually looks like within the industry.

That’s also why we mix experienced judges with newer judges on panels. Maintaining consistency and standards matters hugely to us.

The “Strong Personality” Question

This is something which has come up recently, with new judges asking for advice if they encounter a big personality.

“How do you stop one loud person dominating the room?”

And honestly, while I’m sure it happens somewhere, it’s never really been an issue in our experience.

Most judging panels consist of senior people with many years of industry experience. They know how to discuss work professionally, disagree respectfully, and justify their opinions.

What does happen regularly is that one judge absolutely loves a piece of work that another judge doesn’t connect with at all.

And that’s healthy.

Some work resonates emotionally. Some judges value innovation more heavily. Others focus on results or execution. The conversation is what matters.

Ironically, it’s often easy to agree on the gold winner quickly

It’s then the debate around silver and bronze that can take 40 minutes.

How We Keep Award Judging Fair

Could we make the process easier?

Absolutely.

• We could use fewer judges.

• We could skip discussions.

• We could let everything happen online.

We could probably save ourselves a huge amount of time and stress.

But the integrity of the awards matters too much.

Everything we do is designed to protect fairness:

• anonymous scoring

• conflict checks

• multiple judging stages

• varied panels

• recusal options for judges

• independent scoring systems

We also provide judges with a “recuse” button, allowing them to privately flag conflicts we may not know about. Someone may have worked with a company for ten years previously, for example, and not feel comfortable scoring their work.

That matters.

And so does respecting our judges’ time. Once judging begins, the process has to stay structured and fair for everybody involved.

Which is why, yes, when someone messages us a few weeks after the deadline saying - “Our entry is finally ready…”

the answer has to be no.

Not because we want to be difficult, but because the process has already started moving.

“Awards Only Go to Companies Who Buy Tables”

This is a comment you see across almost every award programme, whether about insurance or local business awards, it’s probably the criticism you see most often on LinkedIn.

And again, I understand why people say it.

But at the ICMA, our judges have no idea:

• who bought tables

• who’s attending the ceremony

• who’s a member

• who’s won previously

• or anything else unrelated to the work itself

In fact, around half of our gold winners weren’t even in the room when they won last year.

Judges only see the work.

That’s it.

And honestly, I’d encourage anyone who’s sceptical about awards judging to become a judge themselves at some point. Seeing the process first-hand completely changes your perspective.

What Would Surprise People Most?

Probably the amount of genuine debate.

People would be amazed by how seriously judges discuss the work.

You have experts from different backgrounds, disciplines, and experiences all bringing different perspectives into the room. Sometimes an entry that one judge initially overlooked becomes a contender after hearing another judge explain why it mattered.

And perhaps the biggest surprise?

How many entries could win.

There are regularly discussions around whether work outside the top three deserves recognition too. The standard across the industry continues to rise every year, which makes judging harder — but also far more rewarding.

Awards Are About More Than Winning

Of course everyone wants to win. That’s natural.

But one thing I wish more people realised is that entering awards has value far beyond the trophy itself.

We’ve had countless entrants tell us the process of creating an entry helped them properly reflect on their work for the first time.

In an industry where everyone moves at 100mph, constantly onto the next campaign, project, or deadline, awards force people to stop and build a case study around the work they’re genuinely proud of.

That’s valuable in itself.

And when people do win?

The impact can be huge.

I’ve seen people jump out of their seats when their name is called.

I’ve seen tears.

I’ve heard stories about promotions, new business wins, confidence boosts, and career-changing opportunities that came after an award.

That’s why we care so much about getting the judging process right.

Because behind every entry is a team, a person, or a business that genuinely cares about the work they’ve created.

And they deserve a judging process with real integrity behind it.