Receive daily articles & headlines each day in your inbox with your free ERE Daily Subscription.

Not logged in. [log in or register]

Why LinkedIn Will Never Kill the Professional Recruitment Industry

by Jan 3, 2013, 5:02 am ET

How LinkedIn is eating the recruitment industry suggested that LinkedIn, an essential tool in a recruiter’s arsenal, is actually going to devour the recruitment sector like an aggressive parasite. This is a very popular viewpoint — and an understandable one given the state of the jobs market, the focus on reducing recruitment spending, and the undeniably impressive growth of LinkedIn’s revenues and share price.

There is undeniably a shift in behavior with regard to LinkedIn, and it has impacted the recruitment industry — but in a different way than the article suggests. LinkedIn needs recruitment to survive. Despite views to the contrary, recruitment companies still contribute the lion’s share of its revenue. LinkedIn is undoubtedly negatively impacting parts of the recruitment market. But it’s not the third-party agencies. It’s the job boards.

You only have to look at a company like Monster whose share price has tanked as impressively as LinkedIn’s has risen. Other job advertising sites such as The Ladders have had to change their pricing models to allow free access in order to keep user numbers up and remain competitive.

Recruitment advertising spending decisions are now being driven by the need for platforms which allow effective interaction and the ability to target an audience of choice. LinkedIn is a much better vehicle for this than large generic job boards and is therefore competing very effectively with them — not recruitment consultancies who use LinkedIn as a tool.

Where LinkedIn has had an impact on recruitment consultancies is that it has decreased the value and uniqueness of proprietary databases. Consequently new entrants to the market and in-house resourcing teams now have access to the same candidate information as long-established recruitment firms. This has had the positive effect of preventing the proliferation of more generalist and average recruiters and enhancing the reputation of the credible specialist and niche recruiter.

Unless the psychology of a human being changes significantly in the near future, the vast majority of professionals are still going to want to interact with another person during the recruitment process, as it is still one of the most important decisions an individual has to make. A career move isn’t an impromptu purchase like an item of clothing or a downloadable tune/movie — and it isn’t a discretionary buy like a vacation or a car. A career is the basis on which someone can make all other purchases and support their family.

While a candidate’s behavior might shift so that they begin to look for opportunities on LinkedIn, and there has been a cultural shift making it acceptable to have a CV in public view, neither the recruitment process nor the ability of clients or candidates to make decisions has improved dramatically due to social networking.

The idea that recruiters can be replaced with some sort of “black box” solution grossly underestimates the impact a recruiter has in the placement of a senior professional candidate or future talent for a business. Individuals whose skill-sets are in high demand and short supply globally will have multiple options, and that professional end of the market will consequently always need third party independent market advice.

However, at the “volume end” of the market, things are different. An advertisement can be placed in a variety of media and a plentiful supply of suitable candidates respond. If you are a recruiter in a market that matches this description, your days indeed are numbered.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to offer specific legal advice. You should consult your legal counsel regarding any threatened or pending litigation.

  • Keith Halperin

    ISTM that it will become easier and easier to find the people who don’t want to hide, and harder and harder for them to do so if they do. The key will not be in finding the right people, but convincing them to listen to you talk about something you think is worth their while. (Of course, this neglects the fact that the vast majority of all hires don’t require either a hard search or a hard sell, but we hardly ever talk about those here….)



  • Suzanne Sears

    Gosh I want your market then: because unless I have lots of extra salary, benefits, vacation or titles to toss in: like I said: only 1 in 40 contacts will actually go through the entire process in retail……..9x out of 10x there is no such magic dust to offer the candidates…just more of the same: different brand.

    Getting them to the table is the hardest thing I do… has to overcome things like: Well what happened to John Smith? why did he leave? or I heard they are shutting stores down?…..on and on.

    I do admire recruiters who say they can have a full slate of qualified candidates to the table within a week. Don’t know how they do it because my experience is that finding one star can take a very long time.

    But then, my clients will only pay for “stars” not regular old hires they could get themselves on Craigslist.

    In fact I am usually only brought in after they have failed in the search themselves around the 30-60 days mark.

    Unemployment is no direct relative of talent….one doesn’t equal surplus in the other.

    Any search I get I know I have mostly 40 hours work ahead at minimum just to start the candidate process with a few suitables.

    And many many more hours to actually get to a closed deal: pray for a closed deal I mean.

    I get that some HR thinks recruiting is like dipping your net in the ocean for fish: they all jump into the net.

    I can assure you in my world: its more like unicorn hunting.

    The words “No Thanks” from first approach to the middle to the end are a staple of my daily diet.

    Don’t know many recruiters who have a different tale: unless they recruit for the Apprentice…lol

  • Michael Overell

    @Adrian: Thanks for the follow up to my original article.

    Despite the (diametrically) different viewpoint in the title, after reading your logic it seems we’re in violent agreement. You suggest that LinkedIn will never ‘kill’ the professional recruitment industry, but then acknowledge that:

    - “Where LinkedIn has had an impact on recruitment consultancies is that it has decreased the value and uniqueness of proprietary databases.” Now internal and external recruiters have access to the SAME information.

    - As a result, “This has had the positive effect of preventing the proliferation of more generalist and average recruiters and enhancing the reputation of the credible specialist and niche recruiter.”

    - If you are a recruiter in the “volume” end, “your days are numbered”.

    You’ve just argued in support of my original thesis :)

    One area we differ, is the extent to which external recruiters (of all types) could be impacted in future, as more and more corporate recruiters adopt LinkedIn’s Recruiter product. We’re only starting to see the impact of this adoption, and it’s a product LinkedIn is selling aggressively (and very successfully, from the numbers).

    There’s been some astute (and less astute) comments about this effect so far.

    However, when debating industry-wide trends, we need to rely on data rather than individual observations.

    From a Bersin survey:
    In 2011 half of US companies DECREASED spending on agency recruiters,
    while nearly half INCREASED spend on contract/internal recruiters.

    Tools like LinkedIn (and others) are supporting this shift.

    (link here:

    That’s not (yet) a trend, but does add some facts to the discussion. I’ll rely on data over a thousand ‘mark my word’ predictions, any day.

  • Graham Wynn

    Personally, I do not see Linked In as major threat. Nor do I see it as a major threat to recruiters. It will have some impact for sure, but not to the level the doom sayers believe.

    First point is cost. To advertise on seek, worked out considerably cheaper than on LinkedIn, and when we have advertised on Linked In job boards, the response has been minimal and also not able to clearly target a particular audiences, so the interest you do get is not always relevant.

    With regards to the death of recruiters, most companies see that recruitment is a skill, just like any other occupation. It cannot be taught form a text book, it comes from experience. The analogy I use is that I may tinker with my car, but if something major needs doing, I will take it to a mechanic. Consequently, when smart companies need to recruit they will seek assistance from experts, as more often than not, internal staff do not have the experience or skill in recruiting.

    My belief is that generally, and I stress generally, companies that do their own recruitment tend to have a higher staff turnover than those who use experienced external recruiters. This is only based on the clients I have worked with, or have spoken to in the past, so again, I stress is a generalisation.

    The theory that LinkedIn will make recruitment cheaper than using external agencies, does not include the hidden cost of high staff turnover, or the cost of time spent in recruiting. To recruit costs far more than simply placing an ad. Indeed, of staff we have placed over last 5 years, 76% still rein in employment after 12 months with a company.

    The other issue with LinkedIn, if you post a job on your own time line, only those who are in your network will see that job ad, so the number of people who can view the job ad is far less than who will see a job on Seek, or indeed, will be seen by our won database and network

    LinkedIn is simply another tool for employers and recruiters, but will never, I believe, replace the job boards such as seek and the use of external recruiters

  • Howard Adamsky

    Not to go on and on here as it relates to this point but I must say one thing concerning Mr. Overell’s comments and then remain silent on the issue. (Besides, I must stack wood and need to stop doing this…)

    Perhaps it is a diametrically opposed viewpoint or a bit of purview that comes from hearing the same tired arguments but I just have little faith in the numbers that you present. (Nothing personal of course; I am sure they are correct and they seem to be charming and official sounding numbers but…

    For openers, I simply do not know where they originated. I do not know who paid for the work to determine the numbers nor the validity of said numbers nor the specific nature of the sample or the data involved or the methods for extrapolation.

    I suspect that in life, we differ Mr Overell and that is perfectly fine. I do tend to place a good deal of faith on individual observations as it is that very perception that allows us, as thinkers and as humans to determine a course of action and a mechanism for survival. Numbers frighten me as I believe that those who have the tools and the bucks to compile them also have the resources to manipulate them. I am tempted to quote the adage that figures lie and liars figure but that would be not only facile but redundant.

    Sadly, I do not trust numbers at all. Interesting to look at and amusing to discuss but in terms of demarcation and acceptance for purposes of reality? I think not or as we say in Brooklyn, no way Jose.

    Prima fascia, I see this argument as specious on a good day and hype on a bad one but please allow me to present a cogent example.

    if you look at the numbers, it appears that unemployment and the economy is getting better yet one only need live through one day in this country, visit Detroit or see the news to know that the numbers are insulting to both intellect as well as sensibility. Quiet frankly, it might might be the best spin in the history of all spin and that my friend, is damn good spin.

    Please be advised that it is not my intention to be political here as that is not my style. I use this example because it is something for which we can all relate.

    As stated previously, we would all be best advised to simply wait and to see what the future brings. As far as agency biz decreasing significantly as a result of trends and studies? As a result of what a few enlightened organizations are doing? I think not.

  • Maureen Sharib

    Howard’s words in his last remark first struck me as funny and then I began to look at them as something deadly serious:

    “Besides, I must stack wood and need to stop doing this…”

    Ha-ha. Oh dear.

    It struck me, living on twelve acres – half woods/half open pasture why I myself stack wood.

    I do it to fuel our wood burning fireplaces.

    Equal to that incentive, and the reason my husband cuts it in the first place, is to save money on fuel costs (we do have a wood-burning stove for those of you who recognize burning wood in a fireplace looses more heat up the chimney than it throws off.)

    Wood was mankind’s original source of energy and is still providing warmth and light along with transformative energy.

    It is a low-cost (for those who have it readily available) alternative to more expensive fossil fuels.

    I realized (in my “Uh-oh” moment over Howard’s words) the economics of the situation we’re discussing.

    “If corn be dear, and butcher’s meat cheap, the farmers all apply themselves to the raising of corn, till it becomes plentiful and cheap, and then butchers’ meat becomes dear…” ~Samuel Johnson, 1809 – 1784

    Today, oil and gas are “dear” and we look for ways to minimize or reduce their costs and wood is one alternative.

    When wood became (becomes scarce) or the “cost” of obtaining it becomes too high the price goes up and lower cost alternatives are (usually) sought out.

    We did this when we turned to the finite source of fossil fuels.

    There was a time not so long ago when oil and gas were inexpensive.

    We burned them with wanton abandonment.

    They are running out (or supply is decreasing while demand is increasing for those of you who believe fossil fuels will go on forever and the rise in fuel prices is all a big conspiracy – entirely a possibility I’ll grant you.)

    Conversely, when supply increases while demand decreases (or remains the same) price (usually) drops.

    Demand would have to increase and that’s a possibility but as Howard so wisely points out who knows what the future may hold?

    We may all be huddled around stone fire pits trying to stay warm by the year 2025 with animal skins barely covering our arses.

    So it is with what we’re discussing here.

    Lots of people are putting lots of eggs into the online basket.

    Samuel Johnson’s words could be rephrased:

    If the labor market be dear, and finding it be cheap, entrepreneurs will all apply themselves to the finding of the labor market till it becomes plentiful and cheap, and then finding them will once again become dear…

    Here’s how it will happen:

    When people (the commodity) realize that becoming part of the madding crowd (as I call it) increases supply and actually reduces their own intrinsic economic value they will pull back like that hot, wood burning stove in our family room had burned them.

    When (and if) everyone rushes (as some have said here they will) to get “online” – wherever and whatever that “online” terminology may mean in the future – what is (and has been) scarce becomes plentiful.

    My argument is simple and is based on the economics of supply and demand.

    When something becomes plentiful it becomes cheap.

    People aren’t stupid – they tend to do what’s best for them. (I take that back – some people are stupid. Let me rephrase that: Most people aren’t stupid…)

    What may be best for them in the future might be returning to the safe haven of anonymity; to the path less trodden and the horn less blown.

    LinkedIn (and the hosts of online “hosts” everywhere) may just be burning themselves out.

    Familiarity breeds contempt (among other things.)

    Time will tell.

    “Familiarity breeds contempt. How accurate that is. The reason we hold truth in such respect is because we have so little opportunity to get familiar with it. “
    ~ Mark Twain, 1835 – 1910

  • Thea Bashiru

    “…neither the recruitment process nor the ability of clients or candidates to make decisions has improved dramatically due to social networking.”

    Agreed, and such a great point! Linkedin cannot make or influence hiring decisions, and so professional recruitment lives on. Linkedin is a great resource for sourcing candidates, and I have found great success as an agency and internal recruiter in placing candidates using Linkedin. It is a powerful resource (notice I didn’t mention *only* resource!) to find and place candidates.

    @Maureen – Agree! Any recruiter that currently engages in phone sourcing and uses Linkedin will heartily agree that a very small percentage of an orgs total workforce is on Linkedin. It’s great to hear that you have had the same experience, and proves that picking up the phone has not gone out of fashion.

  • Maureen Sharib

    It really has gone out of fashion.
    That’s the greatest part (for those of us who know how.)

  • Rich Deakmann

    Suzzane Sears – you are my idol !! Everything you said is exactly how I feel and my 25 plus years experience constantly prove this out. Great delivery …..
    I recruit enterprise software sales people in a specific geo : Chicago Il . I can vouch for everything you said!
    I plan on NEVER going away ! lol….

  • Jacob Madsen

    And then along come the good Jim Stroud with his philosophy/prediction where Linkedin may be able to take things to.

    Hmmmmm as you will see is that at all plausible?

  • Keith Halperin

    Hmmm. ISTM that any given recruiting technique, product, or service that’s easily replicable or purchasable will lose its competitive advantage the more people find out and use it. It’s sort of like a stock tip, or getting in on a bubble- by the time you hear about it, it’s probably too late….So, if you want to stymy the competition, *tell EVERYONE about a great new (hopefully very expensive) recruiting technique, product, or service. They’ll spend their money, jamming/choking the system (having it lose it’s effectiveness through overuse) while you use what works well for you, like “Mighty Mo”‘s direct phone sourcing.



    *I suspect that the more that respected and influential people talk about the value something like this, the less value there is in it. On the other hand, when someone like me (neither respected nor influential) says something: PAY ATTENTION! ;)

  • Howard Adamsky

    Keith, you are both influential as well as respected. I never read an article without reading your comments. Never.



  • Richard Araujo

    “Few know how to spin that gold.

    I have a feeling you do, though so spin some of it for us.”
    - Maureen

    Call their former and possibly current co workers, call them directly. Email them, get them on the line and start talking, plain and simple. There’s no magic to the basics, there’s magic to the ‘selling’ aspect of things, getting them to sell you, etc. But in the end you just have to get off your rear end, find a point of contact, and talk to them.

    As per some of the comments, my feelings were adequately expressed in my first comment. LinkedIn is a tempest in a teapot subject. It’s a good tool, it’s getting over hyped by some, under valued by others. In the end it’s just a well designed and accessible database of people to start contacting. They had that years ago, it was called a phone book. It had companies in it too. They even categorized and alphabetized them for you.

  • Keith Halperin

    Howard, you are very kind.

    Thank You,


  • Sean Rehder

    LinkedIn is a great tool to have and use and I think its worth the cost…but its just one tool on the recruiter’s tool belt.

    For example, I used to run lists of people I had against Linkedin to see who was on it. I’d get between 50% to 60% of people that I tested were on Linkedin. Those are great numbers for a single database, but clearly not the end all.

    Now, take this 50% of the talent market space number against your response rates that you get on Linkedin. You find these in your reporting section.

    I would typically see between 20% to 30% response rates. Of course, everyone’s results varies and different skill sets vary but this is typically what I would see.

    So lets do some math. If you are getting 25% response rates of 50% of the talent market space, you are only engaging with 12.5% of the total talent market space.

    Its a great start, but that’s what it is…a start.

    Oh, jeez…back to the telephone.

    ~ Sean Rehder

  • Pingback: It’s About the Information |

  • Vivek Khanna

    LinkedIn (or whoever is the then leading – flavour of the moment- technology solution) will surely replace the recruiter. But that will happen only on the day all other human jobs are replaced by automation. The recruiter will be the last to turn off the lights….. till then keep recruiting.

  • Pingback: Social Recruitment – The End Of The World As We Know It? | Douglas Jackson Executive Recruitment Consultants for Call Centres & Customer Services

  • Shannon Erdell

    Feeling a need to chime in here. Yes, SOME business has been taken away from us because of social networks. (Like many of you, I’ve been around long enough to remember when we all said Monster was going to kill our industry, then HR and internal recruiters, (many of whom were trained in the staffing industry but did not like the “salesy” part of the job.)

    I’m concerned and wary but not giving up because, either I’m just plain stupid or:

    I belive that we’ll always have opportunities to find and place “purple squirrels” at all levels and industries where our competitors and our clients have failed.

    Temporary, contract and temp-to-hire are still alive and improving slowly (faster in the IT market.)

    Many of our clients including internal recruiters do NOT want to get on the phone and proactively recruit. When I speak with clients I often remind them that “just because you CAN do it yourself, does not mean you SHOULD in every case” citing examples of where using internal recruiting only has failed and providing references to let my clients speak for me.

    As many of you have already mentioned, there is still a lot of hidden talent AND still plenty of corporate recruiters who are not able, nor willing, to make hundreds of out-reach calls, follow-up on thousands of emails, and work evenings and weekends to develop relationships with top talent who are working for their companie’s competitors.

    Also, there are still many opportunities to assist small business owner and managers, (and I believe there always will be if we are willing to be creative and flexible with our pricing and guarantee models) who do not have HR and recruiting staff, but I’m not giving away any of my secrets with those gems who are the core of our business right now.;)

    Here’s to making lemonade out the economic lemon! (our new internal slogan for Q1 2013.)

  • Philip Marks

    LinkedIn is undoubtedly an excellent tool to search for potential hires. Recruitment consultants and in-house talent teams amongst others use it extensively.

    Stats vary but anything from 5% to 8% of profiles on LinkedIn are recruiters or similar. The rest are generally passive and active candidates from every imaginable sector and location.

    A Few Facts;

    · There are c200m registered users on LinkedIn … according to LinkedIn, but remember they do have a vested interest!

    · 40-50% are based in the US

    · Profiles expand across 200 countries (again, according to LinkedIn)

    · Over 40% of users in Europe work for companies with 10,000+ employees

    · 8-10m of those registered users are based in the UK

    · The UK working population is c30m

    There are many arguments put forward about the type of workers registered on LinkedIn (professional vs blue collar etc). However, whichever argument is most accurate there are millions of workers in any given industry who are not registered on LinkedIn, gasp!

    There is also a massive open question about what constitutes an active user. It is certainly not the same as a registered user. I have seen reports quoting anything from 20% to 80% quoted as ‘active’ users of the total registered population.

    Then there is the question of accuracy and duplication. The most quoted recent report on accuracy of information (CV’s) on LinkedIn trialed 119 people in a between-subjects experiment, meaning they tested the same participants in 3 different scenarios. Hardly conclusive evidence. Indeed, an ex employer of mine who shall remain nameless (but needless to say I had left by then), encouraged it’s staff to lie on their profiles to greatly exaggerate their experience, gasp again!

    LinkedIn has become such a quoted and used source of candidate profiles that it is often the first port of call for anyone recruiting staff. The use of LinkedIn by in-house recruitment teams has massively increased during the economic downturn. Agencies must differentiate themselves from their competition to prosper. To only be searching in the same talent pool as in-house recruiters does not do that.

    30% of the UK’s workforce are registered users of LinkedIn, 20%-80% are active and the accuracy of some CV’s are questionable. I urge you to use your critical thinking skills when reading reports and hearing quotes. As an agency it makes sense to differentiate your ability to find the best candidates in the market by utilising alternative skills and resources to provide the best possible person for the client or role in question.

    Don’t fall in to the trap of swapping one database (your own) for another (LinkedIn) and don’t let in-house teams kid themselves or you that searching LinkedIn necessarily provides the best person for their company.

    LinkedIn is here to stay (for now) but it’s not the panacea. Arguably, for recruitment agencies, it is becoming less useful, more saturated and less discerning than other sources.

  • Sean Rehder

    I would love to see what would happen if Linkedin allowed members to have a checkbox(s) that decided who or what type of people could see their profiles and/or reach out to them.

    For example, someone does not want 3rd party recruiting agencies to see them, only corporate/employer recruiters. This could easily be determined by Linkedin with the recruiting account types.

    The #1 issue that Linkedin should look to improve is response rates. The more “quality” in the requests, the more talent will respond. And that’s what I’m looking for in my use of Linkedin…responses to my inquires/requests.

    Linkedin is great for that first introduction/handshake and its a must have for recruiters…but then you have to manage that relationship going forward on your own terms/own process/own tools.

  • Suzanne Sears

    On the flip side of that argument is this: Why bother paying LinkedIn as a recruiter: if you cant contact people you don’t know? Its rather the point of the fees.

    I already find LinkedIn too restrictive: that it runs too much like Facebook: as a place for “friends”

    The purpose of LinkedIn is business networking: if you don’t want to be contacted: don’t post your profile. Use Facebook to stay in touch with your friends and colleagues instead.

    Really: if that’s the worst thing that will ever happen to you using LinkedIn: is that recruiters will contact you for jobs: how bad is that? Do you really want to lock out recruiters from letting you know what openings are out there? Including possibly your dream job?

    Or is you are HR: letting you know what talent wants to join your org?

    Beats the heck of the trolls using other social media sites for less honourable purposes.

  • Sean Rehder


    You’re looking at it from a agency recruiter perspective. You need to look at it from the talent’s perspective because they will decide the effectiveness of Linkedin in the end.

    “if you don’t want to be contacted: don’t post your profile”… That attitude among recruiters is part of the problem.

    Simply put, “bad” recruiters make it tough for “good” recruiters to the point that Linkedin messages go to recipient’s spam folder or talent stops checking their Linkedin account because it is simply is a waste of their time because its filled with items of no interest to them. The noise drowns out everything else.

    I totally understand Linkedin makes its money by selling to recruiters, but Linkedin needs to focus on keeping the talent engaged and not giving recruiters a free reign. We’ll be our own worst enemy if the do.

  • Suzanne Sears

    I don’t know if it falls into a category of “good” or “bad” recruiters. Most that I know of don’t have the time to send redundant messages to people they aren’t really trying to recruit.

    As I pointed out: If LinkedIn wants my money: they have to open things up more not less. Otherwise the value of the information is little less that what I could achieve by simply Googling the company along with the word: say: Marketing.

    Same end result.

    Again: it defies logic that one posts their profile on a business networking site if they have no interest in hearing from anyone besides “friends”.

    Rather instead: why not simply post on their profile: Not currently seeking employment opportunities. Simple. I wont knock on their door. I don’t have the time to waste.

  • Pingback: Why Some Recruiters Will Almost Always Be a Success « Integrated People Solutions

  • Richard Colgan

    Great article. We are all well aware of the impact this has had on recruitment and how it will allegedly ultimately spell the death knell of recruitment agencies. However recent research by ICM suggests that two-thirds of LinkedIn users do not update their details and employment information. I have also heard that some people have been known to be rather “creative” with their LinkedIn profiles! LinkedIn hasn’t met the candidate, hasn’t discussed their strengths, weaknesses and aspirations. It hasn’t assessed their culture fit and it doesn’t know how well they will interview! Direct sourcing also has only one firm to represent and only one goal in mind. I suspect most quality recruiters will be playing a longer game.

    Maurice Fyles, Research Director at ICM, concludes his research with: “It also seems that they [recruiters] are aware of some of the ways it is being used and misused and approach the information on LinkedIn with a healthy amount of scepticism. Our research confirms they are right to be cautious.”

  • Jacob Madsen

    @ Richard
    The ICM findings should not come as a big surprise. Anyone with more than 12 months in recruitment will know that Resume’s and Linkedin profiles being in effect ‘personal advertising posters why anything anyone says or portray having done/doing must at all times be verified and substantiated.

  • Pingback: Why Some Recruiters Will Almost Always Be a Success |

  • Sean Kent

    Adrian on what basis do you make this statement?

    “Despite views to the contrary, recruitment companies still contribute the lion’s share of its revenue.”

    According to LI’s financial statements, “Talent Solutions” represents the majority of revenue, consisting of corporate recruiter licenses, job postings, career pages, etc. What data do you have that further breaks down that number by service sector or company type?

  • Pingback: LinkedIn - a threat to recruitment or a useful tool? | CKA Group

  • Pingback: Why Recruiters Will Be at the Heart of Our Corporate Future | Recruiter It News

  • Pingback: Why Recruiters Will Be at the Heart of Our Corporate Future |

  • Charlie L


    Read all the comments.

    I get the high end/specialist angle, also get the lower end market
    Being unskilled.

    One thing i don’t get: in their terms linkedin state they
    can duplicate/use/edit etc any and all info etc posted.

    Anyone see the problem?

    Ever seen the film “Rock n Rolla”?