Having been writing a few choice profiles about said subject, I have gathered that there are three categories of award winners in giant bureaucracies.
The first category would be people who have worked at a giant bureaucracy for donkey years and have yet to win any award. So, to reward them for their long service and to show them that they have indeed made more of a mark to the organisation than that ageless coffee stain on the desk, they get an award. Such profiles are generally quite easy to write because though they may not have the most stellar of profiles, after working so long they must have something to write about. "He took responsibility of the pantry for thirty years, always making sure that the coffee machine was working. Because of his dedication we never had to drink stale coffee. He kept us all awake. You are a valued employee John (not his real name)."
If not, I can always write about their long service, dedication, competency (after all if you've been doing the same thing for 30 years you'd better be damn good at it), and how they have inspired generations of employees after them. Here is where the stories about how so-and-so is like a father figure, warm and motherly (notice all the geriatric references) come in. It is the organisation's way of saying you are old and creaky and you have stayed here so long your name is now synonymous with certain company practices and in-jokes. In other words, when people mention your name and laugh, at least you know all the people who are laughing are your colleagues, because no one else would get it. Congratulations.
The second category would be the people who actually deserve it. There are always such people around, they are the reason why awards were created. And I actually enjoy writing profiles about these people, because they inspire even a cynical person like me. Most of the people in this category are actually quite extraordinary, in that they love what they do and they do it well. I don't really have much to write about this category because they deserve it. So yes, moving along.
The last category is the category I hate writing about the most. This category consists of the fast-tracked people, who in my opinion don't actually deserve the award, but they are getting it anyway to pad their resumes so they can rise faster and higher into the clouds. These are the people whose most likely accomplishments would go along the lines of "Led so-and-so team to clinching so-and-so award" (an euphemism for eye-power and not actually having done any of the groundwork), or constantly performing over and above expectations at their job scope. (I don't really get this part sometimes, because if they constantly perform over and above expectations, is it a case of them being good, or your expectations being set too low?)
For this category, sometimes their justification writeups for the awards are understandably skimpy, because let's face it, they haven't really done anything that substantial, they are just high-fliers who need the award to distinguish themselves in intricate power plays to the top. So they take the generic route of "does his job really well, a great leader who shows initiative and motivates his employees and so on."
To me, that has the same effect as this. "I deserve this award, because I value add to my organisation. While others choose to sweep the floor in left-right motions, I do it better because I sweep it in concentric circles, which is more thorough. I even inspired all my fellow colleagues in this new initiative, to sweep in concentric circles, which led us to win an award for innovation." No one ever mentions that it doesn't matter whether you sweep from left to right or in circles, the floor doesn't really get that much cleaner.
They can't pay me soon enough for having to write such shit.