But in the poster's context, "excellent" is a non-objective undefined term. In an enterprise, the incentive is for you to define how your subordinates do their jobs.
So, it's a different subject altogether.
This actually gets at what the paper describes as the problem with defining what "excellence" means. (I read about half the paper.) Everyone defines it differently, so excellence basically just means that it's judged well by whoever is doing the judging.
This is an old chestnut of a philosophical problem that many youngsters of my generation first experienced in the form of 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'.
There's no solving it. And yet we all know that differences in quality are real. This is not an argument I want to engage in.
My question was, did the GP learn anything from being told 'not good enough, do it again'? They imply not, but I bet they did.
I've learned lots of things that way. Grant proposals, job applications, asking someone out on a date: lots of things you try out and don't get feedback beyond 'nope'.
So, it's a different subject altogether.
This actually gets at what the paper describes as the problem with defining what "excellence" means. (I read about half the paper.) Everyone defines it differently, so excellence basically just means that it's judged well by whoever is doing the judging.