Don’t get me wrong. I use LinkedIn a lot, and of course so do all the recruiters at Firebrand.
But there are issues with LinkedIn. Flaws.
One of the most obvious is that LinkedIn appears to have no system to monitor accuracy of data on their network. Indeed, they freely admit that many profiles are bogus, and that many people have several LinkedIn profiles.
Only last week I was at a the Recruiters HUB conference in Sydney where a speaker, Kalena Jefferson, HRD for Kelly Services, spoke amusingly, about their office fish ‘Moby’, who apparently has a LinkedIn profile. And get this. Moby once received a headhunt approach via LinkedIn for a sales job!
Increasingly, I have started to detect flagrant misrepresentations on LinkedIn. I have more than 4,000 contacts on LinkedIn. Many of these people are quite well known to me. Some have worked for, or with me (over a 30 year career, that is a lot of people!), or I have interviewed them for a job, or we have done business together.
And even though these people know they are linked to me, many of them create LinkedIn profiles that are as fictional as a Harry Potter novel!
A recruiter who held a bog standard recruiting role with my company, who now, miraculously, was apparently a ‘Divisional Manager’ while with us. A ‘LinkedIn Retrospective Promotion’.
Or a failed recruiter, who was managed out of the business for under-performance, now proudly boasts on her profile that she was the ‘Office Top Biller’ for three quarters out of four!
Or the receptionist – a temp when she was with us, what is more – who has morphed into the ‘Group Administration Manager’ on her LinkedIn profile, which on face value now looks very impressive indeed!
Or (and these are all real actual examples, I hasten to remind you) the ditsy, hopeless recruiter who eventually stole from the company, who just simply leaves the year she was employed here off her profile entirely! And then adds the inconvenient extra 12 months on to another job!
It happens all the time.
And it’s not just qualifications, work history, achievements and job titles that are inflated, exaggerated and quiet simply fabricated. The recommendations on LinkedIn are often as farcical as a John Cleese special.
Like the Senior Manager who worked for me, who eventually had to fire a woefully incompetent Manager… who now brazenly recommends her in glowing terms on LinkedIn! Are we surprised to find she recommends him back in a cozy, all too familiar, LinkedIn tit for tat recommendation love-in?
How can we possibly take LinkedIn recommendations seriously when they are mostly solicited, reciprocal, and worst of all – self-published! If you don’t like what they say, even in nuance, you don’t approve it.
Total nonsense. Useless. Farcical. John Cleese would approve.
LinkedIn has great application. But it is riddled with flaws too. For a start it is packed with fraudulent, exaggerated and inflated profiles.
And it begs the question. Does LinkedIn bear a duty of care to users of their service? In many cases we pay to secure access to these profiles. If they are fraudulent, and we make a hire, or recommend a hire, on the basis of LinkedIn provided data… does LinkedIn bear liability?
Should they?
But in the meantime, legal niceties aside, beware the LinkedIn liar.
*****************************************************************************************************
Subscribe to The Savage Truth, ‘Like’ our Facebook page, and connect with Greg on LinkedIn to ensure you get your recruiting brain-food fix.
******************************************************************************************************
Greg-great post as usual!. You hit the nail highlighting a limitation of Linkedin.
However, it is a moot point shooting the ‘messenger’ or the medium here Linkedin! As elsewhere-the mantra ought to be ‘buyer beware’!
The irony is that Linkedin is in the public domain-and if profiles are so ‘dressed up’ one can imagine what extent one can go to- on job portals where one has lesser risk of being’exposed’ with such claims!
Hi Greg
Thank you for bringing up this very topical issue! Having read the creative Bios of many ex-colleagues, I wonder why they did not put their creating juices to better use while being employed. Our team have often discussed, ways in which these flagrant liars should be held accountable. I understand the need to self promote – but there are limits and ethics to consider.
Surprisingly, a Linkedin search for ‘professional clown’ delivers only 1,371 results. Surely it should be more…?!?! Buyer beware.
Great blog Greg.
I’d say that the best way to differentiate a good candidate from a potential “LinkedIn Liar” is seeing some credible recommendations throughout the time they have worked in their roles; and by credible, I mean, Manager/s and clients that have more than 2 words to say.
Public recommendations can be very confronting and obviously revealing, therefore, most that are given out on LinkedIn are quiet good representations of the performance of the candidate.
- Tom
The risks with recommendations can easily be mitigated by trying to note a common personality/ skill-based thread throughout all the recommendations on his linkedIn page.
I understand the frustration, but how is LinkedIn different than Facebook in this regard? Come to think of it, how is it any different than the New York Times, which has been caught fabricating news, or the AP, which has been caught Photoshopping photos? How is it any different than the governments of the West, which now routinely make up statistics to justify whatever action they aim to take? I would argue that LinkedIn is merely a symptom of the times. I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe anything I read any more, regardless of source. The good news is that if I dig enough, I can usually find the truth.
Of course, I’m not going to sign this post with my real name. That would be very foolish. I’m confident that even if you trace the IP address, you’ll never figure out that I’ve simply borrowed someone else’s, compliments of my IP spoof tool. Sorry if this offends. These are not my rules, but they are THE rules…
Love your work to date, but this time you are a bit off the boil, Greg.
Firstly, LinkedIn profiles are more accurate than CVs. What?? Yes, it is logical. The number of people who depart a company under a cloud are far less likely to misrepresent their career profile when the whole profile is now open to scrutiny and public view. I am aware of a number of examples where clients of mine have made direct, polite requests to former-employees to ‘correct their LinkedIn entries’ to more truthfully reflect the facts’. And they make the correction. It is a professional village with three degrees of separation. I agree people do falsify or exaggerate their work experience, but I would argue that it is nowhere near as prevalent as the ‘old days’ when we didn’t have the public magnifying glass of the internet and LinkedIn and relied on a CV being posted or faxed through. And I would further state that this is especially true of people who have international experience, where it was quite difficult to check on a candidate’s achievements (or lack of them).
And I’m surprised you sound so surprised.
Secondly, who ever took what a CV said for granted? Not you. Not me. Also, LinkedIn references are probably more reliable than the old written references from former bosses and colleagues, which are usually very selective and often written by people who also had a social or family connection, or an agenda (i.e. ‘Please leave now and I will write a good reference’). That stuff is now much harder to do because of the public nature of the endorsement. But at least now it is harder to completely falsify a reference, unless the referee has perhaps ‘passed on’ or retired to oblivion. You answer your own question in this regard by lampooning the mutual fan club that is created, thereby moving the ‘pretenders’ to the periphery. It takes one click to see if a referral is reciprocal, and therefore meaningful.
Thirdly, and I know I am taking your comment out of context, but dumping on a former employee because they schizophrenia is a bad look, whether they were schizophrenic or not. You have a large number of followers; a duty of care to be balanced and fair.
Finally, 3,000 contacts is an unrealistic group of people to claim knowledge of. I’m not knocking the way you’ve collected these 3,000 at all, but I had a philosophy of only connecting to a) people I had met or spoken with meaningfully b) people who were referred by very trusted contacts, especially clients for whom you were doing a favour and c) people who had credible and relevant backgrounds to my business and were potential future candidates or clients. NOW I accept anyone who looks legit and is senior enough, and who has a massive connections base to that can extend my own connections. From pure to slut in one year. From 480 to 780 connections in the same time. No way do I have a handle on all these people. I think this means that LinkedIn will become decreasingly important to me as a “Personal Professional Network”. As you say, “… many of these (3000) are well-known to me”.
Thanks again for your incisive candour and your insights Greg, and I look forward to the next spray. Love ‘em.
Great points there Doug. Don’t fully agree with them all, but lots of food for thought, thanks for taking the time to post, cheers Greg
A great post but the problem is not with LinkedIn, but rather an indivual’s temptation to exaggerate (even re-invent) their achievements and capabilities. It can happen on resume’s just as easily as it does on Linkedin.
We find the same thing occurs with psychometric test takers.
In a study of over 3000 people, researchers, George W. Dudley and Trelitha R. Bryant at Behavioral Sciences Research Press and Dr. Jeff Tanner at Baylor University, compared exaggeration rates of applicants for sales positions in 2006 and 2009. Both groups completed SPQ*GOLD®, a well-established test used globally to forecast business development activity in salespeople . Some of their findings included:
A few test-takers habitually exaggerate. Dudley & Goodson’s earlier multi-nation study of 226,109 adults, found that 6.2% will over-state their abilities despite economic conditions or job availability.
Of the 3,859 U.S. applicants in 2006, 44% (1,105 men/580 women) exaggerated enough to warrant careful verification.
The average U.S. exaggeration rate increased 5% in 2009. 49% of the 3,003 applicants in the sample (1,039 men/418 women) exaggerated enough to warrant caution. The increase roughly parallels the change in unemployment.
The exaggeration rate increased more for women than men suggesting that women may be experiencing more competitive pressure to find employment.
It seems that a good percentage of people just can’t help themselves when it comes to exaggerating their achievements, and the problem gets worse when job opportunities are fewer,
(P.S. if you want more info on the study, contact me on rcollins@bsrpasia.com)
It is interesting that the author has 3000 contacts. Of course, as a recruiter, there is a higher propensity for contacts (and arguably, Linkedin should perhaps treat Recruiters differently, i.e. fewer degrees of separation etc). Research into the formation of communities indicates that the maximum number of associates that people will form in an industry or pastime or the like is around 200. That is what people can keep their heads around. I would challenge anyone with thousands of contacts, to give me a detailed assessment on half a dozen names taken at random from their list. They probably can’t remember them, and use Linkedin as an uber-rolodex. Part of the raison d’etre of Linkedin was as a source of “qualified referrals” – i.e. friends of a friends, where known people would vouch for others. I have routinely seen this abused, where people send me a “Lead” of a friend, and when I dig further the lead is poorly qualified, and the only think that the lead and my contact have in common is that that share membership of a linkedin group, or are simply both what I call promiscuous networkers (or the less polite “connection whores”). The ability to rely on a validation (Personal) is critical. Similarly, a while back I was asked by a Contact if I knew of XYZ who had approached him out of the blue for a Linkedin connection – I spent less than five minutes researching the person in question. I found that he was skipping from state to state to avoid Child Support Payments, was living the “high life”, had been the CFO of a company investigated by the US SEC for Securities Violations, and currently was working on what was clearly a Ponzi scheme… It is not difficult to do such validations…
Then, of course, you have the whole issue of fabricated identities and relationships, and as a technocrat I have ideas on solving that, but if I tell you how, I will have to kill you..(I hope to Patent and sell the same at some point).
I would have to say that LinkedIn profiles are far more likely to be truthful than a persons’ CV. The fact that they are public means only the boldest of liars would try to falsify employment dates, job titles and achievements in full view of their ex-colleagues.
CV’s on the other hand, being private, can be a complete work of fiction with no one to critique. Either way, due diligence and investigation is obviously important when hiring any candidate and not just via the referees they supply, who by your recommendation rationale Greg, are solicited and not to be trusted.
It would be good however to have a way of contesting data on a LinkedIn profile, especially when a candidate leaves a company and does not update their profile, showing them still to be employed. I know of someone let go within 4 months of working for a top MNC in a job way over their head that still shows as being employed by the company even though they left a year ago. An organisation should be able to easily force ex employees to update this info.
I like your idea of “contesting inaccurate data on LinkedIn Scott. Not sure how it would work, but I too know people who left a company over a year ago who still nominate that company as their current employer, cheers Greg
I always feel like ‘recommendations’ would be more palatable to people if they were called something else – my suggestion is ‘endorsements.’ That packages it up a little more honestly. I am not recommending people – but I am imparting my experience of interacting or working with them.
doesn’t solve for the bogus profiles though!
And what about lying referees? I took out a verbal reference the other day where the referee gave the ex employee a fairly good wrap and then boldly stated she would never rehire him “because he was useless at the role” but didn’t want to spoil his chances of getting another job!
Indeed Franca, that is a real problem. Maybe a subject of a future blog
Mind you I believe I provided a reference for YOU on more than one occasion…. so some referees must be honest! (or not)
Best
Greg
Some interesting observations Greg.
I realize a blog is a blog, you have to write something, have opinion, even throw out some designed to bring in ‘hear, hear’s or ‘go back to sleep’ from time to time…
On this post, I’d have to say people have far too high expectations of LinkedIn, and always as a Website & Online service. (let alone of people & how they should behave, as if we had any right to tell others what to do)
I read once a fundamental of marketing is ‘you can’t tell the market what to do’ (you test, test, test & do more of what works, etc.) and so it should be with LinkedIn.
This rule, which simply means the majority will do what they will do, super-imposed onto a tool like LinkedIn might be simply that; it allows you to present yourself in the best light, in difficult times, while you come to grips with understanding the basics of a new tool, to being visible online at all perhaps & a new completely new normal – personally I commend people for getting out there, learning, taking part & doing something.
In short; why should I judge a tool & the people on it, and worse, chastise the very tool I too am doing my best to use?
So relax Greg, folks. LinkedIn is just part of (& part ‘n’ parcel) of the Social Web, in all it’s ever changing glory. Just a platform, a tool, to help you.
After that it’s all about people and yourself. Now that’s something worth thinking about, that’s something you have control over.
Hi Greg,
Good post. But the topic of personal profiles and their authenticity is a tricky one. I’m a huge fan of LinkedIn and would like to say: If there are Liars on LinkedIn, blame the liars, not LinkedIn. From your 3000+ connections, I’m sure only a handful fabricate. It says a lot about them! But considering the networking opportunities LinkedIn affords the vast majority, I’d say the flaws lie in the people who choose to lie, not the social network.
I recently shared this simple analogy at a social media presentation. It went down well: Social networks are like the roads. And different zones have different road rules. But what happens on the roads, is not up to the road. It’s up to the users how to use them. No road system is accident-proof… but it calls for self-regulation.
Acid Test :- Would you ever recommend any of the people who lied on their profile? NO! So, the liars are damaging their own brand. Personal branding is where its all going. Eventually, the truth will catch up with the fabricators.
It’s a bit of a moot point surely. Linkedin is just the current way of publishing your profile. In the past it would have been the CV, which got a lot less scrutiny than Linkedin. And if we are going to attack some of the outlandish claims made on Linkedin, let’s also turn the spotlight on some of the over-stated job ads that appear on Seek and the like. In my view the worst offenders are the employment agncies, so this article is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Everyone talks themselves up – you have to in order to be noticed.
You make a good point Rob about Ads being overstated, as I am sure that happens too. As to your remark on pots and kettles, I beg to differ. Talking your self up, putting your best foot forward, selling yourself…is one thing. Lying is something totally different and I see no area of grey..regards Greg
All good points. I think the responses were better than the original post! They sure made me think.
A couple of weeks ago I got an email saying that there were now 3 million Aussies on LinkedIn. That’s when I figured it had outlived its usefulness. When it was exclusive it worked. I’m not sure that it does work now.
But I absolutely agree that it is likely that someone’s LinkedIn profile is more accurate than their CV. Yes, both are works of fiction to a degree, but LinkedIn is at least able to be more easily peer reviewed.
Not good, but as recruiters we know that there’s always going to be liars…. Isn’t that a big part of our job, to uncover any discrepancies. I would have thought that it would be much harder to lie on LinkedIn, to what it would be a resume.. As a recruiter, I’ve always held onto all of my commission statements, and would always take them with me to interview. And, I ask the same of my candidates “Evidence”
Very valid points Greg,
I have over 15000 direct connections on linked in and many more invitations sitting on the inbox. I have dealt with linked in from the time they were a 2 bit company with very limited number of support staff in mountain view California till now that they are a big and listed company. One of my previous companies actually hijacked my profile after I resigned and I had to contact Linkedin’s head office several times before I managed to take my profile back.
Linked In is a very unreliable tool that should only serve as a mean to an end and nothing more. I have got recruiters contacting me all the time trying to talk about jobs that I actually headhunt for thinking that I am the candidate. Their search engine has been put together by a 2 year old and it takes hours if not days to browse through irrelevant candidates that turn up on search results no matter how sophisticated your search methodology is and complaining goes to nowhere.
Despite I spent endless days and nights to bring my network to where it is now I have significantly toned down on the use of linked in and I am finding more and more that top candidates come through other avenues.
I am afraid I am not a true avid fan of Facebook, Linkedin or Twitter.
It just seems now that Facebook and Linkedin are both heading in the same direction.
I did see a difference sometime ago but not now.
Sorry they are losing me.
Good work and subject Greg.
Regards
Alan
Love your work Doug Flatimus – a much more balanced view than the original.
I have to agree regarding the false information on LinkedIn. Also agree it is a great site if it wasnt for that.
We too have had people give themselves a ‘promotion’ after leaving us. One Manager who was managed out, blatently stole data, suddenly called himself a Director. I wouldnt trust him to Direct himself home!
There are also a couple of people claiming to have worked for us who didnt. I messaged them and asked them to change their profile and was ignored. I could not find how to report them on LinkedIn. However, found sonewhere to email support after a while. This was ignored.
The problem could probably be solved if they had an easyily identifiable button to report false information and then follow up on the report. I can see some pittfalls in this too. However, it could be worth the investment.
I think the only practical response to this issue (and a lot of other issues for that matter) is for people to develop better sales resistance. I even think it should be included on the school curriculum, although I can’t see governments buying into that idea any time soon.
I once googled the term “sales resistance” and all of the returns were pages that talked about how to overcome it rather than how to acquire it.
At the risk of sounding too too cynical, I question whether the level of integrity you seek ever actually existed (generally, I mean – there are many individuals who act with impeccable integrity).
Has any responsible hiring manager ever taken someone’s CV at face value without drilling down into the facts with the candidate and then ultimately taking references?
I’m not saying it’s right – it isn’t – I’m just saying that’s how it is.
Greg,
Sounds like you have hired some pretty poor employees in the past, if you need advice on how to properly interview candidates to improve your quality of hire then don’t hesitate to ask.
Greg, great post! I had to come back and re-read it this morning. One thing I can attest to is that many “recommendations on LinkedIn are often as farcical as a John Cleese special.”
I was appalled when asked for a recommendation from one person whom I have never done business with nor have I any plans to. When asked what exactly ho was asking a recommendation for – this recruiter cheerfully replied that he often sends out requests from people he has met and has a high success rate because of the “cozy, all too familiar, LinkedIn tit for tat recommendation love-in” that is sadly all too prevalent on the site.
No thanks. The recommendations I ask for are for work I have done with people who know me.
HI Greg, always a fan and i can agree to a little of what you are saying…however linkedin in invaluable as long as you know what you are looking for, it is a start in my eyes, and we should always check info on linkedin as we would on CV’s, those who dont do so at their own perril.
Keep up the great work
Helen
This is becoming a hot topic in our office and we share your view entirely. We’ve seen bogus recommendations, fictional responsibilities, stretched dates and creative job titles.. Like Face Book it’s allowing people to present a life they want, not the life they have..
I know quite a few Linkedin Liars. All the ones I know have one thing in common. They all sent me an invite to connect to them clicking the system radio button that said they knew me somehow, yet all of them start their customised invitation to be their best buddy with the words “I know we haven’t met, but I’m now a recruiter for XYZ ABC Ltd and I’d really like to be your friend”
Oh sorry, did I say they all have ONE thing in common ?
Sorry, they have TWO. They’re all “recruitment consultants”.
Make that THREE because every one of them was a complete stranger.
Agree with all that you say. The thing that amazes me is that candidates who apply for jobs, invariably do not lie (as much) on their CV as they do on Linked In. We tend to use it as an additional screening tool for such practises. If you have a variety of tools for the recruitment process, you can generally tell who is lying about what!
Great Article Greg,
I would not usually be compelled to comment on a public forum, but am so glad to finally hear someone make a comment about Linked In (or social media in general) that is not glowing. We are constantly hearing about Linked In and Social Media campaigns being the future of recruitment, changing the face of how we hire etc. But are they really !!
Sure Linked In is a great medium to connect to folks you may not have before, but social media platforms are still only ways to initiate contact with candidates that may like to hear about opportunities. You can also achieve this through attending industry functions, email campaigns and this old chestnut, picking up the phone and talking to people. What your article and the comments ‘for and against’ say to me is that connections, profiles, resumes etc, only add up to 10% of the recruitment process, GOOD recruiters, will understand how to interview candidates, know great people across the marketplace to get accurate references, understand who to talk to to get referals and most importantly will have the skills and experience to distinguish between truth and fabrication. This is our job and what a paying client expects as they are paying the bill the have every right to expect this.
So yes Linked In good tool, but in reality it is just the ‘in’ way to find a role or find a candidate, but is it anymore than a trend, I am sure Greg after the years you have spent in recruitment you surely would have witnessed a number of trends claiming to change the face of recruitment, however what I am almost certianly sure of, is that the good old fashioned process’ of ‘interview and selection’ or picking up the phone to people you know and trust to ask for referals will always be the norm…
But great article Greg and fantastic that someone has the guts to actually start the conversation, rather than just agreeing with the hoards..
Thanks Owen, very valuable insights, appreciated… Greg
There are many LinkedIn liar but no more than the ones that exist offline.
This happens with standard CV’s the old fashion way so I I don’t see what the issue is. Irrespective of whether they’re a LinkedIn Liar or good old fashion Liar on paper, we are still suppose to be interviewing/screening all the same.
So I think you are off the mark on this one Greg. Love your work.
Greg, you’re right of course, but how is this news?
Where humans are involved, you’ll find deception at some nonzero frequency. Humans are involved with LinkedIn. QED.
My main point would be your last one…beware. Recruiters should remember to use LinkedIn information as an input into their process, but certainly not the only one.
Greg, great post as always. I do believe that Recruiters/researchers/etc should be using LinkedIn as a guide, a strong intro to prospective candidates and contacts. They should be conducting their own interviews, due diligence, assessments and research. In my view, LinkedIn provides each of us with the opportunity to share and tell some or all of our professional brand stories, hopefully, it will be as accurate as possible.
Interesting read, anyone who hires from a LinkedIn profile alone though has only their self to blame. Do the due diligence and the lies won’t stand up, simple as.
While I agree there are plenty of examples of
falsehoods on LI, it is not their job to verify information. It is our job as recruiters and employers. And how would they verify it anyway? Have people complete a form and conduct a background check? No extra time or cost there.
Some years ago our firm decided to add a further step to our assessment processes. At first interview, we get each candidate to authorise us to verify their qualifications with the relevant tertiary institutions but only if they are the preferred candidate.
Almost every tertiary institution now has systems in place and respond within 24 hours.
In that first interview, a few correct their resume. A smaller group take the form and leave.
Is this foolproof? Certainly not. But it is a further tool that adds value to the whole transaction.
As others have said, most of what you’ve pointed out has nothing at all to do with LinkedIn – it already happened all the time before, it just wasn’t as transparent. In the end, it has always been up to the employer to validate employment and recommendations independently, I don’t see how that can ever change.
However your final point was more relevant – that people are paying for this access. I’d imagine LinkedIn could make a lot more money by charging for some sort of validation service, but I don’t see any reason they’d include it in their service now if enough people are willing to pay for what they’re already getting.
The comments and stats mentioned by Collins portrays a sad state of affairs and very timely. It is also the sole offering supported by data from a credible source. The others are quite interesting and insightful but also just opinions and anecdote. Great posts, though, that I hope will stir up more research that supplies information that can inform practice.
a lot of my current and former colleagues inflated their title. A one man show manager become Sales Director, hahahha. Would these people be ashmaed if their colleagues ask them or simply people like me find out??????
1. Greg – you end your post with the questions ‘Does LinkedIn bear a duty of care to users of their service? In many cases we pay to secure access to these profiles. If they are fraudulent, and we make a hire, or recommend a hire, on the basis of LinkedIn provided data… does LinkedIn bear liability?.’ Others commenting have hinted at this but surely the point as with everything is caveat emptor – let the buyer beware. No recruiter, consultant or in-house, would surely take a profile on LinkedIn at face value. They would, and I am sure you do, check key information any candidate provides.
2. Abigail Stevens says ‘The problem could probably be solved if they [LinkedIn] had an easily identifiable button to report false information and then follow up on the report.’ Others suggest LinkedIn are not responsive to complaints of inaccurate profiles. Sounds to me like a case for a ‘LinkedInLies’ web site where people could place corrections to profiles that the liars won’t correct or LinkedIn won’t remove. I know, I know, also sounds like a field day for the lawyers but just a thought…
As others have mentioned the unfortunate truth of it all is that the honest ones are losing out. Hopefully in time people become more probing and distrusting, requiring further evidence of roles or qualifications. To assist in this I for one link my published thesis to my profile, and anyone interested can easily follow the link back to my university and confirm that yes I do have that degree.
HI Greg,
Good post.Useful for us
Stop wasting time on Linkedin and do your jobs properly. Leave LinkedIn to the failed recruiters now working client side. The more they use it the more the transactional plebs benefit from assignment flow. Fortunately at the top end of the search market we do things the old school way and actually seek talent out. I think if we are pointing fingers we should point them no further than the Michael Pages and Robert Walters of this world. They are taught to lie and deceive by the leadership as that apparently is how you get ahead. Amateur hour at best.
Haha. I’m encouraged by the fact that a recruiter actually realises that LinkedIn recommendations are untrustworthy. The first time I read a few I was absolutely gobsmacked. Perhaps 1 in 10 might be honest.
There is one reason that people write linked-in recommendations – they want one in return..!
Good people, and good workers, do not need to rely on such tactics.
Too true Greg. The other is people who leave firms but still show you as their “current” employer – companies should be able to flag that. We had a case of “passing off” in LinkedIn’s early days directly attributable to this.