What is the criteria to win an award?

Consider the following case:


Person A - Has just joined a company, is well read, has very good communication skills, good hold over language and a very good attitude. 'A' works for a few years and climbs the corporate ladder steadily. 'A' does most of the things right for the first time, does not make a big deal out of issues but tries to solve them with the end goal always in the mind. 'A' is known as Midas! 'A' is a candidate for 'Achievement' award.

Person B - Is quite a senior when compared to 'A'. 'B' has very good knowledge of the domain and is competent for the role assigned. But 'B' is not very good at communicating with customers. There is lack of clarity coupled with lack of language skills. Added to this, 'B' has an introverted attitude. Over a couple of years, 'B' recognizes these negatives and tries very hard to overcome them. Currently 'B' has shown very good improvement with a string of successes. 'B' is a candidate for 'Achievement' award.


Who should win?
If B wins, then B's confidence greatly improves and it encourages B to do more. Maybe the award is just the right thing needed to boost morale and show B that work is being identified and recognized.
But if B wins, does it not mean that A is being penalized for the traits that A already posseses and that fact is working against A instead of helping A?
Is A's achievement lesser than B's just because A did not have the advantage of "lacking" in certain traits?

One other criterion of assessment could be "quantifying" the business the company made due to each person's contribution. If what A did brought more business to the company then A will be rewarded and vice versa.

Not able to think of any other solution.