Institutional Response of “No” – Don’t Ghost
Higher Education Communication
When the Answer is “No”
Ghosting
Is it appropriate for a higher education institution to not provide a written response to a contractor, vendor or supplier if their institutional response is “no”? In today’s vernacular this practice is commonly called “ghosting”.
While generally not a legal requirement for most higher education interactions, it is considered a professional best practice to provide a contractor or consultant with a clear, written “no” response. Ghosting or ignoring appropriate communication can damage professional relationships and the institution’s reputation.
Reasons to Provide a Written Rejection (e-mail is fine)
-
Professionalism: Providing a formal response, even a negative one, shows respect for the time and effort the contractor invested in preparing their proposal.
-
Clarity and Documentation: A written response avoids ambiguity and creates a clear record of communication. This documentation can be important in case of any future misunderstandings or legal inquiries.
-
Relationship Management: Maintaining a positive relationship keeps the door open for potential future collaborations. The contractor might be a great fit for a different project down the road.
-
Opportunity for Feedback: A polite rejection provides an opportunity (though not an obligation) to offer constructive, objective feedback, which can help the contractor improve their future submissions.
Avoids Wasting Time:
Promptly informing the contractor allows them to focus their time and resources on other potential clients and opportunities.
By sending a professional, written rejection, your institution upholds good ethics and strengthens its standing within the higher education community. This is true even when delivering bad news that the institutional response is “no”.
General higher education practice:
Providing a written response is considered essential for several reasons:
- Professional Etiquette and Reputation
- Avoid “Ghosting”: Ignoring a contractor is a fast way to damage your personal professional reputation and, more so, the reputation of your employer. Consulting firms and vendors invest significant time and resources into communicating with higher education administrators and preparing proposals and bids. Acknowledging that effort is a basic professional courtesy even if the institutions answer is a “no”.
- Relationship Management: A respectful written rejection preserves the relationship for future projects where that contractor might actually be the best fit.
- Even when the institution’s response is a “no”, the consultant or vendor will appreicate a response rather than no response! It is proper business protocol to provide a response.
2. Operational Efficiency
- Closing the Loop: A clear “no” allows the contractor to stop following up and refocus their resources on other potential clients.
- Reduces Follow-ups: Proactively sending a rejection email saves your business from receiving multiple “checking in” calls or emails.
- The tactfully worded “no” letter to a vendor will have more positive consequences for the institution than “ghosting” the vendor.
Best Practices for Declining:
- Be Timely: Send the rejection as soon as the decision is finalized.
- Be Direct but Gracious: Clearly state that you are not moving forward, thank them for their time, and briefly mention the reason (e.g., budget, alignment, or another vendor chosen).
- Keep it Brief: You do not need to provide a detailed critique; a simple, professional note is sufficient to “close the loop”.
