FT ARTICLE - If you have to reject me, tell me straight

Below is an article we have reproduced from today's Financial Times, written by the brilliant Lucy Kellaway. Do take the time to read it.

IF YOU HAVE TO REJECT ME, TELL ME STRAIGHT

Last December, Elly Nowell was interviewed for a place at Magdalen College, Oxford to study law. When she got home, she sat down and composed a letter to the ancient institution. “I very much regret to inform you that I will be withdrawing my application,” she wrote. “I realise you may be disappointed by this decision, but you were in competition with many fantastic universities and following your interview I am afraid you do not quite meet the standard of the universities I will be considering.”

This 19-year-old girl has taught me two important things about rejection letters. First is how well they work in the wrong direction: from candidate to interviewer. To have the powerless rejecting the powerful not only does the soul a great deal of good, it may make sense tactically. To dump a complacent boyfriend is a time-honoured ploy; I don’t see why the same shouldn’t work with jobs and university places. If there is anyone with any spark in Magdalen’s law faculty they will surely be regretting this plucky, funny girl who got away. (Though perhaps wondering if law, that dullest of all dull courses, was right for her.)

Second, by mimicking the standard rejection letter, Ms Nowell reveals what a pathetic form of communication it is. Patronising, disingenuous, all-round beastly. There is only one accepted way of writing these things, used by all organisations everywhere, and it contains three bits that go like this. “Thank you for your interest in,” they all begin. “We have had a record number of highly qualified applicants and regret that . . . ” And then, an upbeat ending: “We wish you all the best for your future.”

All three elements are shockers; far from softening the blow they intensify it. First, as a reject, you don’t want to be thanked for your “interest”, as what you were showing wasn’t interest, but desire for a position. Neither is it remotely comforting to know how many other great applicants there were. Worst of all, no one appreciates hollow good wishes from someone who is telling them to shove off.

When putting rejection into words, less is more. When one of my children was rejected from a university it was less upsetting to see the naked word UNSUCCESSFUL against the entry on the online application form than to read the letter which arrived a couple of days later with its bad tidings routinely packaged with insincere good wishes.

One might think there were nicer ways of saying no. Howard Junker, the founder of literary magazine ZYZZYVA used to return short stories with a covering letter that began: “Gentle writer, Please forgive me for returning your work and not offering comments. I would like to think of something to make up for my ungraciousness, but I don’t think a few quick remarks would really help.” He signed off with a handwritten, “Onward! J”

How charming, I thought when I first heard of this. But then I read a blog from a not-so-gentle writer who had received the very same letter on many occasions and found it anything but charming. The point is that no standardised letter can ever soften any blow. Rejection is rejection and it hurts.
Indeed, sometimes a brutal rejection is better. Antony Sher often describes the letter he got from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art that said: “Not only have you failed the audition and we do not want you to try again, but we seriously recommend that you think about a different profession.”

Similarly, some 30 years ago a senior colleague of mine applied for a job at the Economist and got a rejection letter back from the editor’s secretary asking him not to contact the editor again. Such rudeness can only make the recipient think “screw you” and fill them with just the right sort of bloody mindedness to fight on until they make it.

The only worthwhile kind of rejection letter is one that gives reasons. Ms Nowell told Magdalen that she thought it stuck up and off-putting to candidates who didn’t come from posh schools, a point the college might do well to ponder.

In offering an explanation she wasn’t mimicking the normal style: employers almost never give reasons for fear of being sued, or because they don’t want to enter into a dispute, or because their hiring processes are so opaque they don’t know the explanation themselves.
The best rejection letter I ever received contained a reason I will never forget. I had written to a Mr Ivan Sallon, city editor of the Sunday Telegraph, asking for a job. He replied saying that there were no vacancies and went on: “May I offer you a word of advice? When applying for a job, do take care to get names right.” The letter was signed: Ivan Fallon.

lucy.kellaway@ft.com
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2012.

MARSHMALLOWS !

I’ve always hated a particular English sweet called marshmallows, popular with children at fairgrounds for its sickly sweet synthetic taste and soggy texture. Sometimes people toast them which makes for an even more horrible gooey mess.

The DTC feedback has adopted a visual presentation which is obviously inspired by marshmallows, right down to the chemically induced colours.

The feedback appears to be an exercise which has all the characteristics of the previous ones focussing on relative performance but completely avoiding any detail or specifics which could really lead to any useful analysis which people could take away from the exercise and which could give them at least the satisfaction and compensation of assessing their business against their peers in a genuine and meaningful way.

The DTC has regularly hosted and promoted its own seminars as an opportunity for Sightholders to gain insights and inputs to improve their businesses. How ironic therefore that an exercise that is proclaimed by DTC to be so robust cannot apparently risk exposure to the sort of genuinely meaningful scrutiny and dialogue that one would both reasonably expect and hope for.

What's Up?

It’s always difficult to comment on what you don’t understand and despite the fact that the DTC announced the CPQ results and provisional list over 3 weeks ago we are still waiting for the feedback which would at least have given Sightholders and their brokers hopefully some understanding of the outcomes as well as the opportunity to evaluate how the process worked, undeniably to the advantage of some but also to the severe detriment of others.

If there is the confidence that is claimed by DTC in the robustness and rigour of this process then the feedback should hopefully provide the rational explanations that are required to demystify a process which seems to start off as relatively transparent but becomes increasingly opaque as it progresses. Even more importantly, for a business whose reputation and credibility is based around checks and balances as well as sound management and judgement, it is difficult to see how some of the outcomes have been reached or evaluated in terms of either business coherence or indeed in some cases best practice.

The DTC has the procedures in place (internal verification, third party verification, BPP and ultimately the Ombudsman) to ensure that those cases that are both contentious or indeed controversial, as some clearly are(!), are fully and properly addressed before the full and final list is announced in March. This will be the real test of whether this process and its outcomes are genuinely robust and convincing and, of course, the DTC will be judged (as we all are eventually) on actions rather than words.

EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED !!??!!

I think my reaction to some of the CPQ outcomes is summarised nicely by this title. I shouldn’t be surprised because every process seems to have had some outcomes which one really struggles to comprehend, let alone accept.

If it was an essay writing or best fiction competition that had consumed so many months of our lives and so many livelihoods and futures did not depend on it, I probably would be a lot more relaxed and comfortable about it than is the case.

I bet my view is fairly widely held but doubt whether many will have the balls to publicly agree with me, but it won’t stop me saying what needs to be said both now and into the future.

Nevertheless, as it is the season of goodwill and good cheer, I wish all my faithful readers a very happy Christmas and New Year!

TOO BIG TO FAIL AND TOO IMPORTANT TO GET WRONG!

Yesterday the British coalition government and the Diamond Trading Company made two long awaited announcements. The one from the British government was Chancellor Osborne announcing the government’s policy to address the systematic failure of the British banks in 2008. At the same time the DTC announced its new provisional client list.

The British government made it clear that they intend to separate the solid banking retail sector from the speculative banking sector (casino banking) to ensure that banks cannot be brought down again through irresponsible and ill advised speculation leading to toxic debt and subsequent government rescue.

Looking at the new DTC list there still appears to be a disconnect between the reality of criteria assessment and established behaviours which are at complete variance with coherent or sustainable models in the longer term.

One thing that both the government and the DTC have to deal with is the consequences of uncontrolled speculation. Just as governments had not choice but to rescue banks ‘too big to fail’, the DTC has been obliged to rescue a diamond industry and market also ‘too big to fail’.

Let me make it quite clear that I am not criticising the good intentions of DTC management to operate a system that can be considered both robust and credible. It is no easy task and never was. Before SoC was introduced brokers’ input into the selection process was felt to provide checks and balances which gave the whole system an extra layer of protection, dialogue and comprehension.

Since SoC the KAMs inherited the potentially conflicting role of being confidante, advisor and judge, jury and even executioner! Given the inherent conflict in such a position it is hardly surprising that it was felt that an Ombudsman was necessary to oversee fair play.

Marketing is not just about shared aims but shared values as to how to achieve them and surely those values have to include a dedication to getting things right. Right for the consumer, right for the client, right for the industry in general. The DTC’s commitment to doing the right thing in general is recognised by the fact that it is still the diamond company that is the reference point for the whole industry and rightly so, which is why whatever they do is subject to such intense scrutiny and market analysis.

Checks and balances are essential to any democratic society or credible process and to admit to fallibility or systemic errors is a sign of fairness and strength, not weakness.

ETHICAL BUSINESS AND THE CONSUMER

A report from today’s FT (‘Consumers stick with principle over price’) shows clearly how ethically sourced and provenance brands and goods increase their sales (‘up 8.8% in 2010 against a 0.4% rise in consumer spending’). Even in such straitened times for the consumer this shows clearly that consumers do not feel comfortable with any purchase, from food to luxury items, where there is any genuine concern about whether exploitation or intimidation has been an integral part of their production.

In some cases the emphasis is around fair trade, in other cases there is a much more sinister dimension where production has been linked to serious human rights abuse in countries with either, at best, dubious or, worse still, proven reputations for brutality and tyranny.

The DTC has been absolutely right to have clearly identified its own proactive and robust stance on any issues that have damaged the hard fought reputation of the industry since the horror of blood diamonds emerged in the tragedy of Sierra Leone. They are also absolutely right to ensure that the provenance of the Forevermark is beyond question.

It is very clear where ethics are concerned that there is no room for doubt or compromise when the reputation of the industry can so easily be called into question and at a time when political tyrants have never been more under threat across the world. The DTC’s unwavering and consistent position on this is absolutely vital from both an ethical and a business point of view.

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC COHERENCE (or the lack of it)

At a time when the world’s attention is focussed on whether the Euro and the Euro zone will survive the extraordinarily relentless and challenging stress-test the market is subjecting it to it may seem strange to talk of the EU’s success because, whatever the gravity of the current problems, the political achievement of creating a European economic union of 27 sovereign nations is undeniable in terms of both the breadth and ambition of the project and in terms of the fractured history of Europe as a continent.

India, due to become the world’s most populace nation, comprises 28 states and 7 union territories and like Europe has a level of political complexity and a political class which consistently manages to send out confusing and contradictory messages to the world (the latest being whether Indian will open up its retail sector to foreign investment).

Europe is certainly having a hard time and widespread negative press at the moment and India’s political class perhaps also needs to look towards Europe to see what happens when political coherence is not addressed it will inevitably be forced upon you by events.