Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of this message. Revise it so that it follows the guidelines for responding to requests for recommendations:
Your letter to Kunitake Ando, President of Sony, was forwarded to me because I am the human resources director. In my job as head of HR, I have access to performance reviews for all of the Sony employees in the united States. This means, of course, that I would be the person best qualified to answer your request for information on Nick Oshinski.
In your letter of the 15th, you asked about Nick Oshinskis employment record with us because he has applied to work for your company. Mr. Oshinski was employed with us from January 5,1998, until March 1, 2008. During that time, Mr. Oshinski received ratings ranging from 2.5 up to 9.6, with 10 being the top score. As you can see, he must have done better reporting to some managers than to others. In addition, he took all vacation days, which is a bit unusual. Although I did not know Mr. Oshinski personally, I know that our best workers seldom use all the vacation time they earn. I do not know if that applies in this case.
In summary, Nick Oshinski performed his tasks well depending on who managed him.
The only strengths in this response are confirmation of the employment dates and denoting the performance ratings. The weaknesses include an overall tone that is somewhat condescending; such as using phrases like "This means, of course" and also a level of unprofessionalism by stating use of ...
Recommendations of former employees should be factual and comply with company policy and/or procedure. This solution analyzes a letter for potential issues or "red flags" and provides for a revised, brief letter which should be used instead. The solution is about 200 words.