Endocrine News speaks with Joel Habener, MA, MD , the Endocrine Society’s 2018 Outstanding Mentor Laureate Award recipient, on how to help your staff make a good first impression with a few tips on writing a letter of recommendation. [ Editor’s Note : We are bumping up this 2021 interview with Joel Habener, MD, MD, who spoke to us about the best practices on writing staff recommendation letters .] Grad schools, fellowship applications, and potential employers all depend on recommendation letters to help reveal applicants’ best accomplishments and strengths.
As a lab manager or senior-level faculty member, odds are high that you have been asked to author such a letter for students or young employees advancing to the next stages of their careers. Writing recommendation letters are a familiar process.
Good letters are specific and include facts and anecdotes whenever possible. For instance, share whether the applicant has any unusual competence, talent, or leadership skills.
What excites this person? What do remember most about him or her?
Context and purpose: the article presents expert guidance on crafting effective letters of recommendation, grounded in the experiences of a senior endocrinology researcher who frequently writes for trainees advancing to medical school, graduate programs, or junior faculty roles.
The material emphasizes practical approaches to letter content, process, and interaction with requesters, rooted in a long-standing mentoring position at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School.
His roles include chief of the Laboratory of Molecular Endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital and professorship at Harvard Medical School.
The piece is framed as guidance for staff members who are asked to compose recommendation letters, reflecting Habener’s extensive experience in mentoring and letter writing.
It frames letter writing as a critical component of career trajectory and emphasizes how best to convey an applicant’s strengths.
It highlights noting distinct competencies, talents, leadership qualities, and elements that reveal what excites the applicant or what stands out in the writer’s memory.
The emphasis is on tangible attributes observed during the experience with the applicant.
He recommends clarifying the purpose of the letter and inviting the requester to specify the information they want included.
He also suggests that if negative information might be necessary, it should be handled in a controlled manner by encouraging direct contact with the requester for potential disclosure.
The underlying aim is to keep negative information out of the main letter while still offering context if needed.
The interview emphasizes that the asking party’s goals should shape content, and that a portion of interviewing may involve discussing what information could be relevant or requested.
He supports engaging with these formats by clarifying expectations and ensuring that the accompanying form’s items are addressed accurately in the narrative portion.
The stated conditions that could lead to refusal include insufficient information about the requester’s relationship or experience or if the professional relationship was unsatisfactory.
In such cases, he suggests either declining or offering a brief letter that documents the nature and duration of the experience and that objectives were met.
Habener observes that approximately three-quarters of the time, he receives some form of acknowledgment or update on application outcomes.
The piece gives a concrete anecdote: a former trainee who secured acceptance to all five medical schools to which he applied, prompting further advisory interaction.
The source emphasizes experiences with students moving through the academic and professional ladder and the ongoing communication about their progress during the application cycle.