# Recommender Brief: [Applicant name] for [Recommender name] > A planning workbook and briefing pack for MBA letters of recommendation: > choosing recommenders, making the ask, preparing a briefing pack of > stories with evidence, managing the timeline, and closing the loop with > thanks and an update on the outcome. It is written for applicants to > full-time, part-time and executive MBA programmes at leading > international schools. Source basis: the public description of the > GMAC Common Letter of Recommendation (checked on gmac.com in October > 2026) and the recommender instructions that schools publish on their > admissions pages; the text is original. Replace every `[bracketed]` > value and every row marked *Example*. This is a planning aid, not > admissions advice, and it never replaces the instructions of the school > you apply to. ## Document control | Field | Value | |---|---| | Document ID | [REC-001] | | Applicant | [Applicant name] | | Recommender | [Recommender name, title, organisation] | | Relationship | [Direct supervisor / Former supervisor / Senior colleague / Client] | | Schools covered | [School A R1, School B R1, School C R2] | | Earliest letter deadline | YYYY-MM-DD | | Version | [0.1] | | Status | [Planning / Asked / Accepted / Pack sent / Submitted / Thanked] | | Owner | [Applicant name] | | Reviewed by | [Mentor or admissions coach, if any: reviews this plan, never the letter] | | Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD | | Classification | Personal | ## 1. Purpose and how letters are read A letter of recommendation is the only part of an MBA application written about you by someone else. Admissions committees use it for three things the rest of the file cannot show well: an independent check that the achievements in your resume and essays are real, a comparison of you with other people the recommender has seen in similar roles, and evidence of how you respond to feedback and how you treat other people. A letter that repeats your resume adds nothing. A letter that tells two or three specific stories, with numbers and with the recommender's own judgement, adds a voice the committee trusts more than yours. That defines what you control and what you do not. You control who you ask, when you ask, how well you prepare the recommender, and how you follow up. You do not control what the recommender writes, and you should not try to. Many leading schools state that the recommender must be the sole author of the letter. Your job is to give a busy person the facts, dates, context and deadlines they need to write an honest, specific letter on time. Most programmes ask for one or two letters. Requirements differ by school and programme type (full-time, part-time, executive) and change between cycles, so record each school's current rule in section 2 before you plan anything else. ## 2. Rules of each school on your list (dated) ### 2.1 Common Letter of Recommendation (as of October 2026) As of October 2026, GMAC publishes a **Common Letter of Recommendation** (Common LOR), developed with a group of business schools, which participating programmes can embed in their own application systems and may extend with their own questions. GMAC's pages (checked 2026-10-28) describe three parts: 1. **Recommender information**: who the recommender is and how they know the applicant. 2. **A leadership assessment grid**: 12 competencies and character traits, grouped into five categories (achievement, influence, people, personal qualities and cognitive abilities). For each, the recommender picks the level of behaviour they have seen most consistently, with the option to say they have not observed it. 3. **Open-ended questions**: three core questions and one optional one. In GMAC's description they cover the recommender's interaction with the applicant and the applicant's role, a comparison with peers in similar roles with specific examples, and the most important piece of constructive feedback the recommender has given, how the applicant responded and what that showed. The optional question invites anything else the school should know. GMAC's guidance article (August 2026) suggests answers of about 500 words each; the form inside each school's system sets the actual limits. GMAC's page lists the participating programmes (42 entries when checked on 2026-10-28). Being on the list does not mean a school uses the form without changes: programmes can add questions, and some schools on the list ask a different number of letters or set their own recommender rules. Check the current list and the template on [gmac.com: Common Letter of Recommendation](https://www.gmac.com/reach-and-recruit-students/prepare-candidates-for-the-exam-classroom/common-letter-of-recommendation-lor) and each school's recommender instructions before you rely on it. ### 2.2 Authorship and AI rules (as of October 2026) School rules on who may write or touch a letter are strict and are usually stricter than the rules for essays. For example, as of October 2026 the letters of reference page of Stanford GSB's MBA programme says the recommender must be the sole author, that drafting, writing, translating, editing or submitting your own letter breaks the application terms even if the recommender asks you to, and that the letter may not be submitted from your personal or work computer or other device (check the [current Stanford GSB page](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/programs/mba/admission/application/letters-reference)). Other schools word it differently; many ask the recommender to confirm authorship in the form, and some ask the applicant to sign a statement that the application is their own work. Rules on generative AI for applications also differ by school and change between cycles (October 2026). Some schools forbid essays written by someone or something else; some allow AI for ideas or editing but not for complete responses; some publish no policy. Treat letters as covered by the strictest reading: **you do not use AI to draft, rewrite or polish any part of a letter, and you do not give your recommender AI-drafted text about you to paste.** Whether a recommender may use AI tools for their own writing is a question for the school's instructions, which you pass on to them without comment. Record each school's rules in mba/mba-ai-use-policy-check and disclose AI use honestly wherever a school asks. ### 2.3 School rules worksheet | ID | School and programme | Letters required | Who (required profile) | Format (Common LOR / own form / other) | Extra questions | Authorship or AI statement | Letter deadline | Checked on | Source URL | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | SCH-01 *(Example)* | School A, full-time MBA, R1 | 2 | One current supervisor, one other professional | Common LOR plus one school question | Short answer on teamwork | Recommender sole author; no applicant drafting or editing | Same day as application | 2026-10-28 | [admissions URL] | | SCH-02 *(Example)* | School B, executive MBA | 1 | Current supervisor, also confirms sponsorship | School form | Sponsorship and time-release confirmation | Recommender certifies authorship | Two weeks after application | 2026-10-28 | [admissions URL] | | SCH-03 | [School C, programme, round] | [n] | [Profile] | [Format] | [Extra questions] | [Rule in your own words] | YYYY-MM-DD | YYYY-MM-DD | [URL] | ## 3. Choosing recommenders ### 3.1 Criteria Schools publish slightly different guidance, but the logic is the same everywhere: the best recommender knows your work closely, recently and over a long enough period to compare you with others, and is willing to spend time writing specific examples. Use these criteria: 1. **Proximity**: they saw your work directly, ideally as your supervisor. Most programmes expect at least one current or recent supervisor. If you cannot ask your current supervisor (for example because your employer does not know you are applying), schools usually accept a former supervisor or a senior colleague, and many offer a short optional answer where you can explain the choice. 2. **Recency and duration**: the stories should come from the last two to three years and the relationship should span at least several months of joint work. 3. **Comparison base**: they have managed or worked with many people at your level, so the peer comparison is credible. 4. **Evidence of leadership and growth**: they saw you lead, influence, handle a setback or act on feedback. 5. **Reliability**: they meet deadlines, write clearly in the language of the application (or the school accepts translation rules you can follow), and will answer you when you follow up. 6. **Complementarity**: across two letters, the recommenders cover different sides of you (for example, operational results and people leadership) and do not tell the same story. Avoid choosing for title alone, choosing an alumnus of the school who barely knows your work, choosing a family member or friend, or choosing someone whose letter would read like a reference for a different career. Academic recommenders are rarely right for an MBA unless a school asks for one or you are applying straight from university. ### 3.2 Candidate scoring worksheet Score each criterion 1 (weak) to 5 (strong). Weight proximity and evidence most heavily. The weighted score is a conversation aid, not a rule: a low score on reliability should rule a candidate out on its own. | ID | Candidate | Relationship and period | Proximity (x3) | Recency (x2) | Comparison base (x2) | Leadership evidence (x3) | Reliability (x2) | Weighted total (max 60) | Covers which side of you | Decision | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | CAN-01 *(Example)* | Daniel Kowalski, VP Supply Chain, Northfield Outdoor Co. | Direct manager, 2023 to now | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 15+10+8+12+8 = 53 | Operations results, leading a cross-functional team | Ask (letter 1) | | CAN-02 *(Example)* | Ifeoma Adeyemi, former Head of Planning, previous employer | Manager 2021 to 2023 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 12+6+10+12+10 = 50 | Analytical depth, response to feedback | Ask (letter 2) | | CAN-03 *(Example)* | Chief Executive of Northfield | Two meetings | 1 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3+8+10+6+6 = 33 | Title only | Do not ask | | CAN-04 | [Name, title] | [Relationship, period] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [Total] | [Side] | [Decision] | ### 3.3 Special situations - **Your employer does not know you are applying.** Ask a former supervisor or a senior colleague who can keep a confidence. Use the school's optional answer, if offered, to explain briefly and without complaint why your current supervisor is not a recommender. - **Executive MBA.** The supervisor who writes the letter is often the same person who approves time away and funding. Settle sponsorship first (mba/emba-sponsorship-proposal) so the letter is not written under uncertainty. - **Entrepreneurs and family-business applicants.** Use a board member, investor, major client or co-founder who saw your decisions; explain the relationship in the recommender information section. - **Recommender writes in another language.** Follow the school's translation rule exactly. Some schools forbid the applicant from translating; check before you plan. - **Reapplicants.** Check whether the school wants a new letter, and whether it should come from a new recommender who can speak to recent growth. ## 4. Making the ask Ask early: six to ten weeks before the first letter deadline is a common working margin, longer for senior people or around holiday periods. Ask in a short conversation before you send anything in writing. In the conversation, cover: 1. Why you are applying and what you want to do after the MBA, in two or three sentences. 2. Why you are asking them in particular: which part of your work they saw. 3. What the commitment is: number of schools, approximate questions and length, the platform, the deadlines. 4. A clear, honest exit: "If the timing does not work for you, I will completely understand." A reluctant recommender writes a weak letter. 5. Confidentiality: who else knows you are applying. 6. The schools' authorship rules (section 2.2): you will provide facts and context, they write every word. ### 4.1 Written follow-up (your own words) After a yes, send one short message that confirms the schools, the deadlines and the next step (the briefing pack in section 5, and the system invitations each school sends). Keep it factual and do not include any proposed wording for the letter. | Item | Content | |---|---| | Subject line | [MBA recommendation: schools, deadlines and next steps] | | Thanks | [One sentence] | | Schools and deadlines | [Table or list, earliest first] | | What arrives next | [Invitation emails from each school; briefing pack by YYYY-MM-DD] | | Authorship note | [Each school asks that recommenders write the letter themselves; I will send facts and dates only] | | Your availability | [Times you are free for a 30-minute briefing call] | ## 5. The briefing pack The briefing pack saves your recommender time and helps them remember specifics. It contains facts they witnessed, evidence they can check, and the context of your application. It does not contain adjectives about yourself, sample sentences, or a draft. ### 5.1 Contents 1. Your current resume (mba/mba-resume). 2. A one-paragraph summary of your goals and why an MBA now (from mba/mba-goals-essay), so the letter does not contradict your essays. 3. Three to five stories they witnessed (section 5.2), with dates and evidence. 4. A map of the competencies the forms commonly ask about against those stories (section 5.3), so the recommender can see which examples fit which question. 5. One example of feedback they gave you and what you did with it (section 5.4). 6. The list of schools, the deadlines, the extra questions per school and the platform logistics (section 5.5). ### 5.2 Story bank: things your recommender saw Write each story in the Situation, Task, Action, Result form, with the recommender's own role in it. Use numbers you can prove, and name the evidence (a dashboard, a report, an email, a review) so the recommender can check it. Keep each story short; the recommender decides what to use. | ID | Period | Situation and task | What you did (actions) | Result with evidence | Recommender's role | Competencies shown | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | STO-01 *(Example)* | 2025-Q2 to 2025-Q4 | Northfield's stores had 14 weeks of inventory against a target of 9; markdowns were eroding margin | Built a weekly reorder model, ran a pilot in 12 stores, trained 30 store managers, reported to the operations committee | Weeks of inventory fell to 10 in pilot stores (planning dashboard, Q4 report); rollout approved for all stores | Sponsor, chaired the review where the rollout was approved | Analytical thinking, initiative, influence without authority | | STO-02 *(Example)* | 2026-Q1 | Distribution centre migration slipped; two team leads in conflict | Ran a reset workshop, split ownership, held daily 15-minute stand-ups for six weeks | Migration finished three weeks late instead of the forecast ten; both leads stayed (project close-out memo) | Escalation point, attended the reset workshop | Team leadership, conflict handling, resilience | | STO-03 | [YYYY-QN] | [Situation and task] | [Actions] | [Result and evidence] | [Role] | [Competencies] | ### 5.3 Competency map Recommendation forms, including the Common LOR grid described in section 2.1, commonly ask about a similar set of qualities. Described in general terms, they are: results and initiative; analytical and problem-solving ability; influence and communication; teamwork and treatment of others; developing other people; integrity and ethics; self-awareness and openness to feedback; resilience and adaptability; and potential for larger leadership roles. Map your stories so the recommender has at least one specific, witnessed example for each quality the form asks about. If a quality has no example the recommender saw, leave it empty: the recommender may mark "not observed", and an honest gap is better than a stretched claim. | Quality the forms commonly ask about | Story IDs | Evidence the recommender can check | Gap or note | |---|---|---|---| | Results and initiative *(Example)* | STO-01 | Q4 operations report | None | | Analytical and problem solving *(Example)* | STO-01 | Reorder model, pilot results | None | | Influence and communication *(Example)* | STO-01, STO-02 | Operations committee minutes | None | | Teamwork and treatment of others *(Example)* | STO-02 | Close-out memo, team survey | None | | Developing others *(Example)* | STO-01 (trained 30 managers) | Training records | Limited direct reports so far | | Integrity and ethics | [IDs] | [Evidence] | [Gap] | | Self-awareness and response to feedback | [IDs] | [Evidence] | [Gap] | | Resilience and adaptability | [IDs] | [Evidence] | [Gap] | | Potential for larger roles | [IDs] | [Evidence] | [Gap] | ### 5.4 Feedback you received and acted on Many forms ask the recommender for the most important constructive feedback they gave you and how you responded. Remind them of a real episode; do not invent one and do not choose a disguised strength. Give the date, the feedback in plain words, what you changed, and the evidence of the change. | ID | Date | Feedback as you remember it | What you changed | Evidence of change | |---|---|---|---|---| | FB-01 *(Example)* | 2025-03 | Your analysis is strong but you present too much detail to senior audiences and lose them | Moved to one-page summaries with the recommendation first; asked a peer to time my presentations | Q4 committee approved the rollout in one meeting; manager's mid-year review notes the change | | FB-02 | [YYYY-MM] | [Feedback] | [Change] | [Evidence] | ### 5.5 Logistics sheet | School | Platform invitation sent | Form type | Extra questions | Letter deadline | Submitted (recommender confirms) | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | School A *(Example)* | 2026-08-20 | Common LOR plus one question | Teamwork short answer | 2026-09-09 | Yes, 2026-09-04 | | [School] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Type] | [Questions] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Yes / No] | ### 5.6 Before and after: a fact versus a claim The pack should give verifiable facts, not adjectives. Two fictional fragments show the difference. - *Weak (claim):* "I am a natural leader who always delivers results and inspires my team." - *Strong (fact):* "Q2 to Q4 2025: led the reorder pilot in 12 stores, trained 30 store managers; pilot stores went from 14 to 10 weeks of inventory (Q4 operations report). You chaired the review that approved the rollout." The second gives the recommender something to verify and to judge in their own words; the first gives them nothing and invites a generic letter. ## 6. Process and timeline ```mermaid flowchart TD A["Record each school's letter rules (section 2)"] --> B["Score candidate recommenders (section 3)"] B --> C{"Two strong, complementary candidates?"} C -- No --> B C -- Yes --> D["Ask in person or by video (section 4)"] D --> E{"Clear yes?"} E -- No --> B E -- Yes --> F["Send briefing pack and hold a briefing call (section 5)"] F --> G["Register recommender in each school's system"] G --> H["Check-ins at T-3 weeks and T-1 week"] H --> I{"Submitted before deadline?"} I -- No --> J["Polite reminder, contact school if a problem arises"] J --> I I -- Yes --> K["Thank-you note"] K --> L["Update on outcome and next steps (section 8)"] ``` | Relative date | Step | Owner | Done | |---|---|---|---| | T-14 to T-12 weeks | Record school rules (section 2.3); shortlist candidates (section 3.2) | Applicant | [ ] | | T-12 to T-8 weeks | Ask each recommender; confirm in writing (section 4.1) | Applicant | [ ] | | T-8 to T-6 weeks | Send briefing pack; hold a 30-minute briefing call | Applicant | [ ] | | T-6 to T-4 weeks | Register recommenders in each school's system as soon as it opens; confirm invitations arrived | Applicant | [ ] | | T-3 weeks | First check-in: any questions, any system problems | Applicant | [ ] | | T-1 week | Second check-in; offer to resend logistics | Applicant | [ ] | | T | Confirm submission in each school's portal | Applicant | [ ] | | T to T+3 days | Thank-you note (section 8.1) | Applicant | [ ] | | Decision date | Update on the outcome (section 8.2) | Applicant | [ ] | Placeholders for your cycle: T for School A is [YYYY-MM-DD], for School B [YYYY-MM-DD]. As an example only, several leading programmes set Round 1 deadlines in early September in the 2026 to 2027 cycle; confirm every date on the school's own page and do not copy last year's dates. ## 7. Ethics and integrity rules 1. **The recommender writes the letter.** You do not draft, ghost-write, outline in sentences, edit, translate or submit it, even if asked. If a recommender asks you to "write something and I will sign it", decline politely, explain the school's rule, and offer the briefing pack and a call instead. If they still cannot write it, choose another recommender. 2. **No AI-written letters or letter text.** Do not generate a letter, paragraphs or "talking points in letter form" with an AI tool for a recommender to use. The register of school AI rules is in mba/mba-ai-use-policy-check; disclose your own AI use wherever a school asks, and pass the school's instructions to your recommender without advising them how to get around them. 3. **No access to the recommender's account or device.** The recommender submits from their own account and device. 4. **Facts must be true and checkable.** Do not inflate numbers in the pack. Schools may verify employment and may contact recommenders. 5. **Respect confidentiality.** Do not share your employer's confidential data in the pack beyond what the recommender already knows, and do not ask to read the letter. Most systems let you waive your right to see it; many applicants do, and some schools expect it. 6. **Consistency, not coordination.** Your essays and the letter should describe the same facts. Consistency comes from a shared fact base (the pack), not from shared wording. ## 8. Thanks and update ### 8.1 Thank-you note A short, specific note in your own words, by hand or by email: what they did, the time it took, and one line on why their support matters to you. A modest gesture is fine where workplace rules allow it; anything of value can create a conflict with employer gift policies, so check them. ### 8.2 Outcome update Tell each recommender the outcome of every school, including rejections and waitlists, and your decision. If you are waitlisted, ask whether they would be willing to send an additional note only if the school invites one (see mba/mba-waitlist-update-letter for the school's rules on extra material). If you enrol, offer to stay in touch and, where it fits, to help their own team members later. | Recommender | Thanks sent | Outcome update sent | Next contact | |---|---|---|---| | Daniel Kowalski *(Example)* | 2026-09-06 | 2026-12-15 | Coffee after programme start | | [Name] | YYYY-MM-DD | YYYY-MM-DD | [Plan] | ## 9. Quality checklist - [ ] Section 2.3 is filled from each school's official page, with dates. - [ ] Each recommender has worked with me closely and recently and agreed without hesitation. - [ ] Two recommenders cover different sides of my work; no story is duplicated across them. - [ ] The pack has facts, dates and evidence only; no draft text, no suggested sentences, nothing produced by an AI tool. - [ ] Every number in the pack matches my resume and essays. - [ ] At least one feedback episode is real and specific. - [ ] Deadlines, platforms and extra questions are listed per school. - [ ] Recommenders were registered in each system as soon as it opened. - [ ] I have not asked to read the letter and have not accessed the recommender's account. - [ ] Thank-you notes and outcome updates are scheduled. ## 10. Common mistakes 1. Choosing the most senior name instead of the person who knows your work best. 2. Asking two weeks before the deadline, which forces a rushed, generic letter. 3. Sending a draft letter or "suggested paragraphs", which breaks most schools' rules and makes letters sound like your essays. 4. Using an AI tool to prepare letter text or "talking points" phrased as sentences for the recommender. 5. A pack full of adjectives and no evidence the recommender can verify. 6. Two recommenders telling the same story, so the second letter adds nothing. 7. Inventing a feedback episode or choosing a strength disguised as a weakness. 8. Numbers in the pack that differ from those in the resume or essays. 9. Not registering the recommender in the school's system early, so the invitation arrives days before the deadline or lands in spam. 10. Ignoring a school's specific profile requirement (for example, a current supervisor) without using the space to explain. 11. Forgetting to thank recommenders and never telling them the outcome. 12. Pressing a reluctant recommender instead of finding another. ## Sources and further reading - GMAC (checked 2026-10-28). *The Common Letter of Recommendation (LOR)*. [gmac.com](https://www.gmac.com/reach-and-recruit-students/prepare-candidates-for-the-exam-classroom/common-letter-of-recommendation-lor). - GMAC (2026, August). *GMAC's Common Letter of Recommendation: how to use it in your MBA application*. [gmac.com](https://www.gmac.com/resources/learners/how-to-apply/application-guidance/use-common-letter-of-recommendation-for-mba-application). - mba.com (checked 2026-10-28). *Letters of recommendation* guidance pages. [mba.com](https://www.mba.com/how-to-apply/letters-of-recommendation/how-to-get-a-letter-of-recommendation). - Stanford GSB (checked 2026-10-28). *Letters of Reference*, MBA admission. [gsb.stanford.edu](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/programs/mba/admission/application/letters-reference). - The admissions pages and recommender instructions of each school on your list (record the URL and the date in section 2.3). ## Revision history | Version | Date | Author | Change | |---|---|---|---| | 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [Applicant name] | First version from template | | [0.2] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Applicant name] | [Pack sent to recommender] | ## Standard and licence note Based on the public descriptions of the GMAC Common Letter of Recommendation and on recommender instructions published by business schools, checked in October 2026. The text, worksheets and examples are original; the people and the company in the examples are fictional, and no wording from any recommendation form is reproduced. This template is not affiliated with GMAC or with any school; check the current official pages before you rely on any rule. Template licence: MIT.