What Reviewers Look For in the MBA Recommender Answers (GMAC Common LOR)
This rubric looks at whether the recommender gives a credible, firsthand comparison of the candidate with a clearly defined peer group and a specific example. It also examines whether the constructive-feedback answer explains what the candidate needed to change, the circumstances, and the candidate's visible response. Strong answers use concrete workplace incidents, keep the focus on the candidate, and make each response answer its own question.
What We Check
Whether the answers themselves show the working vantage behind the judgments - the writer's role relative to the candidate, the setting of the shared work…
The comparison answer's yardstick.
The feedback answer's arc.
Whether each claimed quality is proven by a described workplace incident in which the candidate's own action is visible.
The two answers as a set: each answer addresses its own question's asks, neither recycles the other's material, and the facts about the candidate hold steady across both.
Mistakes We Flag
- Relying on title or secondhand praise
- A recommender's authority should come from direct work with the candidate, not seniority, company name, or what others have said. Claims should stay within what the writer personally observed.
- Using broad rankings without a real comparison group
- Claims such as “the best” or “top 5%” need a named group the recommender actually knows, along with examples that show the basis for the comparison.
- Giving a disguised compliment as feedback
- Saying the candidate works too hard or is too much of a perfectionist avoids the request for constructive feedback. The answer needs to state what needed to change and show what happened afterward.
- Listing traits instead of showing an incident
- Labels such as strategic, driven, or results-oriented do not give the reader much to evaluate on their own. Describe a workplace situation and make the candidate's actions clear.
- Repeating material across the two answers
- The comparison response and feedback response serve different purposes. Reusing the same incident or turning the feedback response into more praise leaves one of the questions unanswered.
References
Frequently Asked Questions
What should the comparison answer include?
It should compare the applicant with a named group of well-qualified people in similar roles whom the recommender knows. It should explain the basis for that comparison and provide specific examples.
What belongs in the constructive-feedback answer?
State the most important constructive feedback given, explain the circumstances, and describe the applicant's response with actions that show change.
Do I need to write about every leadership quality?
No. The answers should focus on supported judgments and concrete incidents rather than reciting competency labels or listing traits.
How long can the core answers be?
The GMAC form caps each core answer at 500 words, but a school's stated instructions or limits take precedence.
Get your essay scored across all 5 dimension with specific, actionable feedback. Two free reviews per day — no credit card required.
See how letter of recommendation review works