Non-Endorsed Twice and Confusion with Recognition Beyond Occupation

Hi everyone,

Sorry for the long text but I found my case pretty unusual and interesting to share with you and probably get your advice what to do in that case.

I have applied for the GL program as a senior product manager and selected 2 Optional criterias:
OC1 “Proven track record of innovations” and
OC3 “Significant contribution to the field from a product-led digital technology company”

Got first Non-Endorsement Decision with the following resolutions:
Mandatory - NO (would be expected that a leader in their field would have a wider network to draw letters of recommendation from - I provided 3 letters)

Based on that I sent a Review letter. Few weeks later I got another Non-Endorsement Decision which States that my review and appeal is fully valid and they confirm that there was a mistake. From my understanding this means that MC is now YES.
At the same time it states that my case is still non-endorsed due to different reasons. From the content of the letter I found that it was reviewed by a different person and this different person brought slightly wrong reasoning for a refusal from my perspective.

In short the final letter says NO for MC and both OC with the following statement “The impact on the industry has been limited to the role the applicant is performing within the organisation i.e. what the applicant was recruited to do”.
I found it unusual and wrong since there’s an Optional Criteria №2 which I did not apply for. This criteria is specifically about “recognition for work beyond the applicant’s occupation”.

Do you think it’s valid to extend ground for refusal related to OC2 to all the other criterias? Is there any another hidden reasoning behind that? Tech Nation program does not mean I can’t be hired by a company to perform some product responsibilities. Does it mean I can’t be a Leader when hired?


1 Like

i think it would be beneficial if you share what evidences you have submitted.


Here’s the thing, applying again could result in a totally different outcome. This means that the assessors, who have the final say, may all see things slightly differently. Going through this forum you’ll see how this has happened.

Seeing the summary of what you submitted may help in sharing our views about your case.

This may depend on how the story was told in the overall application. The impact TN expects to see may be there but maybe the story presented didn’t emphasise it (or wasn’t clearly seen by TN).

1 Like

Thank you @Maya and @westside for your inputs
Please find a brief explanation of what I presented

1. CV
Supports MC
– track record as a product person, diverse profile

2. Cover Letter
Support MC, OC1, OC3
– Explanation my experience, skills, innovations, etc.
– For the last 3+ year I’ve been working as a Senior Product Manager in a UK-based product led company.
– Developed and delivered to the market a unique (the only) client-engagement solution distributed for a tier-1 retail customers globally - supported by a customer’s letters
– Proven interest and requests from another clients
– Established a product development office for the company with 25+ people on board
– Mentorship of other Senior product managers
– Multiple presentations on a various trade fares and expos
– Driving a number of other innovative product initiatives, which allowed company to extend to other markets - China, US, etc.
– Key point - has not been appointed specifically to build something, but rather came with a working solution and leading it from A to Z.

3. LoRs from:
Support MC, OC1, OC3
– director of my company - UK-based product-led enterprise software provider
– senior executive of a tier-1 global widely-known company - client of the solution I created and leading
– director of a company which is distributing our solution
Overall there’s a very diverse profile of recommenders.

4. Number of press-releases and Articles of myself and with my participation - related to product and the impact to the market
Support OC1, OC3

5. Highlights from a video presenting the solution.
Supports OC3

1 Like

Here are my thoughts (they don’t mean a lot in the bigger scheme of things):

  1. I see why TN says contribution is to the employer only but when someone picks OC1 and OC3 then this is most likely to be the case.
  2. The first TN response seems to understand this (point 1).
  3. The issue may boil down to the exact evidence you submitted for MC (leadership, where TN said “would be expected that a leader in their field would have a wider network to draw letters of recommendation from - I provided 3 letters”).
  4. Can you share the summary of what you provided for MC. It’s hard to pick it out from your recent post.
  5. Either way, I will keep the evidence for OC1 and OC 3 but work on MC evidence to show impact from non-company people or events. It may still be linked to your company but the story should be about how others benefited and with statements coming from them.

A lot of assumptions have gone into my statements above, the idea is just to hopefully present fresh ideas and a point of view.

It appears for MC it does count to have evidence spanning further than one’s day-to-day job. And in this case this may be where TN has an issue with your application.

1 Like

let me know if you used same evidences for MC, OC1, OC3.
its not clear from your breakdown of what evidences you applied for each criteria. and if you used evidences to support all criteria or more than one criteria , it might weaken your application.

thats to my knowledge and understanding only.

1 Like

Thank you for the assumptions, much appreciated.
Since I’m allowed to submit a second review based on the new refusal I am planning to concentrate on why my role is a truly leadership role, how my achievements are being recognised outside the organisation, how much of an impact my products have within the industry, and why it’s not just a day-to-day job. I guess I’m not allowed to present any other evidences or restructure my application so it should be just a written explanation.
Do you think I’m allowed to use 3 parts of explanation in the Part 2 of my Review since they rejected all three criterias separately but with almost similar reasoning?

Yes, I used mixed evidences. Seems to me it’s not problem based on a summary from the first TN officer.

Yes, a review won’t allow you submit additional evidence. I am not familiar with the review process but I think the more you can give pointed explanations the better, with the aim of clearing any doubts they may have. I have seen stories here of people getting an endorsement for a reviewed refusal.

Let’s see if others on the platform can weigh in on this part. I wish you all the best!

1 Like

I hope you get endorsed this time

1 Like