MBA forms reward specificity. A short response anchored in a consequential project and a credible comparison is more useful than a page of leadership adjectives.
Write the relationship statement first
State how long you have known the applicant, the reporting relationship, the applicant’s role, and the scope of work you observed. Keep this concise so the evidence sections have room.
Make comparative performance interpretable
Define the group—analysts at the same level, direct reports over a stated period, or project leaders with similar scope. Choose a dimension and prove it with an example instead of ranking every quality.
- Problem solving under uncertainty
- Influence without authority
- Execution and accountability
- Team development
- Judgment and ethical decision-making
Treat constructive feedback as a growth story
Name the feedback, circumstances, initial response, subsequent action, and observable change. The prompt is not asking for a disguised strength. It is testing self-awareness, coachability, and development.
Answer the question asked
Respect the school’s word limit and use the exact form it provides. Save a working copy for other participating schools, but review every pasted response for institution names, role changes, and current instructions.
Use one clear comparison and one honest feedback-to-growth story to make an MBA recommendation credible, efficient, and useful.
Keep the mba requirements in view.
GMAC’s Common LOR is designed to reduce duplicate work across participating schools. Its core prompts ask about the working relationship, comparative performance with specific examples, and the most important constructive feedback given—including how the applicant responded. School-specific instructions still control submission.
Return to the MBA cluster →