For a large enough population that most do not have a remote shot at qualifying Olympics, the goal should be getting them all “healthy” or “fit,” hence a balanced approach.

It’s also interesting that you’re rewarding those who are “most balanced across all 4 categories.” That’s certainly the way preformance reviews normally work: here’s n things you’re supposed to be good at, some of them are good, the others are not, let’s work on bringing the weaknesses up to standard.

There’s a body of research that has led to a theory, called “Strengths-Based Management,” that suggests a different approach. To vastly oversimplify, what the data say is that the most effective managers would say, here are the things you’re good at, let’s make them even better, and as for the things you’re not so good at, let’s split the job description in such a way that someone who is good at those things can do those bits.

Of course, there’s more to it than that. They distinguish between talents, which they believe to be essentially unchangeable, and skills which are things someone can learn fairly easily. The division-of-labor approach is recommended for the talents, not for the skills.

Anyway, a different way of thinking about things. Check out Marcus Buckingham’s First, Break All The Rules.

For more information on why they are bad and what to do instead:
http://www.infoq.com/news/2008/10/performance_review