The value-conflict email

Two rubrics, one email

The email assessment is not a request or a refusal. It is an email written in response to a scenario in which a value conflict has been planted, and it is marked twice over: once on R-email's ten lines — form — and once on R-conflict's five — states the conflict in one sentence · names the value or rule at stake · proposes a specific, proportionate action · tone respectful and non-accusatory · offers a next step. Half the marks are for the email; half are for handling the conflict inside it. A well-formed email that never names the issue earns the first half only; an email that names it accusingly loses the tone line and usually the reader.

The first sentence of a value-conflict reply is the point: what you will do, and why — stated respectfully. Not the conflict, not the rule, not an apology: the action. The rest of the email supplies the facts, the rule, and the next step. That is the direct approach applied to a message whose reader may not welcome it; it is still direct because the reader is a professional who needs to know your position in sentence one.

Worked example — the tickets, to the manager

Each R-email line is labelled [E-n] and each R-conflict line [C-n] where it is earned.

> To: Ngozi Achebe · CC: — · Subject: Meridian: hospitality offered during evaluation [E-1: six specific words; E-7: To the person who must act, nobody copied — a disclosure goes to one reader] > > Dear Ngozi, [E-2: rapport, first name and comma] > > I want to record that Meridian's sales representative, Marcus Doyle, offered me two Leafs tickets today and asked what the competing lease quote was; I declined the tickets and did not share the quote, and I would like your view on whether anything further is needed before I score the vendors. [E-3: the point — what I did — in sentence one; C-1: the conflict in one sentence; C-3: the action taken, proportionate] > > The offer was made by phone at about 2 p.m., after Mr Doyle had asked whether we had other quotes in hand; he described the tickets as thanks for considering Meridian. I said that Wren's policy does not allow me to accept hospitality from a vendor during an evaluation and that the quotes are confidential to the client. He accepted that without pressing. [E-4: one topic; the facts, dated and specific — what was said, not what was meant; C-4: Mr Doyle is described, not characterised] > > The rule at stake is independence: Priya has to be able to rely on the scoring as unaffected by anything a vendor offered, and our engagement letter says the quotes are hers. [C-2: the value named — independence — and the rule, in plain words] I propose to keep Meridian in the evaluation and score it on the same criteria as the others, to note the approach in the working file, and to recommend three quotes so that no single vendor is favoured. [C-3 again: specific, proportionate — the vendor is not punished, the process is protected] > > Could you confirm by tomorrow (Thursday 7 November) that this is enough, or tell me whether Wren should raise it with Meridian directly? I will not score the vendors until I have your reply. [E-5: action, deadline, route; C-5: the next step] > > Kind regards, [E-6] > > Sam Whitfield > Analyst, Wren Advisory · 905 555 0142 > > [E-8: formal but not stiff — a manager the analyst works with daily; E-9: error-free; E-10: no attachment, none referenced.]

Two things to notice. The email does not say Mr Doyle tried to bribe anyone — it says what he offered, when, and what was said back; a marker reads the first as an accusation and the second as a record. And the analyst does not decide alone what is enough: the next step hands the judgement to the person whose job it is, with a date, while making clear what the analyst has already done.

Audit it against the fifteen lines

This is the audit promised in module 1: take a document and mark it line by line. Go through the fifteen labels above and confirm each is earned once. If any label is missing, find the sentence that should carry it. Then do the same to your own exam answer below — before you commit it.

Write the assessment cold

The exam is the co-op scenario from module 3, now as the email itself rather than the plan: the senior associate has asked you, in writing, to log four hours to a client with budget left. Reply to her. First sentence: what you will do and why. Facts, not motives. The rule. A proportionate action — logging the hours where they belong — and an offer to discuss. Fifteen lines; you have all of them.