12 Common Recommendation Letter Mistakes (With Before and After Examples)
A bad recommendation letter does not just fail to help. It actively hurts the candidate. These are the 12 most common mistakes, with before and after examples so you know exactly what to avoid.
Generic praise without examples
Evaluators have read thousands of letters that say 'hardworking' and 'dedicated.' These words carry zero information. A 2024 GMAC study found letters with 3+ specific examples scored 42% higher on persuasiveness ratings.
Before (Avoid)
John is a hardworking, dedicated employee who always goes above and beyond. He is a great team player and an excellent communicator.
After (Better)
When our payment system experienced a 34% increase in failed transactions, John designed a retry-with-backoff system in 3 weeks. Transaction failures dropped from 8.2% to 2.1%, saving $180,000 monthly. He then trained 4 junior engineers on the new architecture.
Writing about yourself instead of the candidate
Some recommenders spend paragraphs establishing their own credentials, describing their programme, or narrating their own career. The letter is about the candidate, not you. One sentence establishing your relationship is enough.
Before (Avoid)
As the Director of the Advanced Research Lab, which I founded in 2015 after receiving a $2M NSF grant, I have overseen 47 doctoral students and published over 200 papers in top-tier journals. My work on quantum computing has been cited 3,000 times...
After (Better)
I supervised Dr. Chen for 3 years as her doctoral adviser in the Quantum Computing Lab at MIT, where I direct a research group of 12. In that time, she emerged as the strongest doctoral student I have mentored in the past decade.
Damning with faint praise
Words like 'competent,' 'adequate,' and 'met expectations' technically sound positive but signal to experienced readers that you cannot say anything genuinely enthusiastic. 89% of hiring managers interpret these as negative signals.
Before (Avoid)
Sarah was a competent employee who consistently met expectations. She was satisfactory in her role and performed her duties adequately.
After (Better)
Sarah exceeded every quarterly target I set for her. In her first year, she grew her client portfolio from 12 to 28 accounts, generating $1.4M in new annual revenue while maintaining a 97% client retention rate.
Wrong addressee or generic salutation
According to NACE data, 68% of hiring managers said a personalised salutation made a positive impression. 'To Whom It May Concern' signals the letter is generic and reused. 54% of evaluators consider it outdated.
Before (Avoid)
To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to recommend this candidate for the position they are applying for.
After (Better)
Dear Dr. Martinez and the Hiring Committee at Stripe, I am writing to recommend Sarah Chen for the Senior Data Engineer position in your Platform Infrastructure team.
No peer comparison
A 2023 study of 500 hiring decisions found letters with specific peer-comparison rankings correlated with a 31% higher callback rate. Without a ranking, evaluators have no reference frame for your praise.
Before (Avoid)
I recommend this candidate. I think they would be a good addition to your programme.
After (Better)
In my 15 years of managing data engineering teams totalling 60+ professionals, Sarah ranks in the top 5% of people I have supervised. I recommend her without reservation.
Too short (under 200 words)
Brevity signals lack of investment. If a recommender cannot write more than a paragraph, evaluators infer the recommender does not know the candidate well or does not care enough to write a proper letter.
Before (Avoid)
I recommend John for this position. He worked for me for 2 years and did good work. He is reliable and smart. Feel free to contact me if you have questions.
After (Better)
[A full letter of 400-600 words with 2-3 STAR examples, a growth story, and a peer comparison ranking. See our templates for the complete structure.]
Too long and unfocused (over 1,200 words for non-academic)
For non-academic contexts, letters exceeding 1,200 words show diminishing returns. Admissions officers report that longer letters are more likely to contain repetitive content. Academic position letters (2-4 pages) are the exception.
Before (Avoid)
[A 3-page letter that repeats the same qualities in different ways, includes irrelevant anecdotes, and lacks clear structure]
After (Better)
[A focused 1-page letter with clear sections: opening, 2 STAR examples, growth story, closing with ranking. Every sentence earns its place.]
Including irrelevant personal information
Mentioning the candidate's marital status, family plans, religion, political views, health conditions, or physical appearance is inappropriate and potentially illegal in employment contexts. It also signals poor judgment by the recommender.
Before (Avoid)
Sarah is a wonderful mother of two who always manages to balance her family obligations with her professional responsibilities. As a devout member of our church community...
After (Better)
Sarah demonstrates exceptional time management and prioritisation. She consistently delivered high-quality work on schedule while managing multiple concurrent projects with competing deadlines.
Not matching the letter to the specific opportunity
A 2023 Glassdoor survey found that 71% of hiring managers ranked 'relevance to the specific role' as the most important factor. Generic letters that could apply to any opportunity waste the evaluator's time.
Before (Avoid)
[The same letter sent to 5 different employers with no customisation for the specific role or programme]
After (Better)
[A letter that references the specific position title, company/programme name, and maps the candidate's strengths directly to the stated requirements of that particular opportunity]
Late submission
A late letter can disqualify an otherwise strong candidate. A 2023 Council of Graduate Schools survey found that 62% of programmes reported at least one late letter per cycle. Late submission reflects poorly on both the recommender and the candidate.
Before (Avoid)
[Submitted 3 days after the deadline with no communication to the candidate or the admissions office]
After (Better)
[Submitted 5 days before the deadline, with the recommender confirming submission to the candidate via email]
Grammar and spelling errors
If you are vouching for someone's professional or academic capabilities and your letter contains typos, it undermines your credibility as an evaluator. It also suggests you did not invest time in the letter.
Before (Avoid)
I am writting to reccommend Sarah for this poisition. She is a excelent candiate who's work has been truely impressive.
After (Better)
[Proofread letter with no errors, on letterhead, with correct spelling of the candidate's name, the institution, and the programme throughout]
Agreeing to write when you cannot be genuinely positive
The biggest mistake is not in the writing but in the decision to write at all. Evaluators detect tepid endorsements instantly. A neutral letter raises more red flags than a missing letter.
Before (Avoid)
[Reluctantly writing a letter that says 'she performed her duties' and 'she was present in class regularly' because you felt obligated to say yes]
After (Better)
"I want to help, but I do not think I am the best person to write this letter. Someone who has worked with you more closely on [area] would be able to give a stronger recommendation. Would [Name] be a good option?"
The "Lukewarm Letter" Problem
Admissions officers and hiring managers develop a finely tuned sense for tepid recommendations. They process thousands of letters and recognise patterns that signal reluctant endorsement. Here are the red flag phrases:
| Red Flag Phrase | What Evaluators Interpret |
|---|---|
| "Competent" | Average at best. The recommender cannot find anything impressive to say. |
| "Met expectations" | Did the minimum. No evidence of going above and beyond. |
| "I have no complaints" | Extremely weak. The absence of complaints is not a recommendation. |
| "Fairly" or "reasonably" + adjective | Qualifying language suggests the recommender is hedging. "Fairly intelligent" reads as "not that intelligent." |
| "When motivated" | Implies the candidate is not consistently motivated. A significant red flag. |
| "Pleasant to work with" | The recommender cannot identify any professional or academic contributions worth mentioning. |
| "I would recommend" (without "strongly" or "without reservation") | A bare recommendation without qualifiers signals lukewarm support. |
When to Decline: Scripts for Saying No Gracefully
When you cannot be positive
"I want to help, but I do not think I am the best person to write this letter. Someone who has worked with you more closely on [relevant area] would be able to give a stronger recommendation. Would [Name] be a good option?"
When you do not know them well enough
"I appreciate you thinking of me, but our interaction has been limited to [context]. A recommender who has worked with you more closely would provide a more specific and useful letter. I would suggest approaching [Name] or someone from [context]."
When you cannot meet the deadline
"I would be happy to write a letter for you, but my current commitments make it unlikely I can meet the [Date] deadline. I do not want a late submission to hurt your application. Can you ask someone else for this round? I am happy to write for future applications with more lead time."
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the most common mistake?
Generic praise without specific examples. Phrases like "hardworking" and "team player" carry zero information. Every claim needs a concrete STAR example as evidence.
What is "damning with faint praise"?
Using words like "competent" or "met expectations" that technically sound positive but signal to evaluators that you cannot say anything genuinely enthusiastic. 89% of hiring managers interpret these as negative.
How do evaluators detect lukewarm letters?
Absence of specific examples, generic praise, short length, "To Whom It May Concern," no peer comparison, and qualifying language. They process thousands of letters and recognise these patterns instantly.
Is a short letter bad?
Yes. Under 200 words signals lack of investment. It is interpreted as the recommender either not knowing the candidate or not caring enough to write properly.
Should I agree to write if I cannot be enthusiastic?
No. Decline politely and redirect. A lukewarm letter is worse than no letter. Suggest someone who can speak more enthusiastically about the candidate's specific contributions.
Complete Writing Guide
How to write letters that avoid all 12 of these mistakes.
How to Ask for a Letter
Giving your recommender the right materials prevents most mistakes.
All Templates
Find the right template for your context.
Employment Template
The most common recommendation type with full guidance.