Why LinkedIn endorsements don't work

LinkedIn endorsements are one of the most widely-used credential signals in professional networking — and one of the least meaningful. Here is why.

Zero accountability by design

An endorsement on LinkedIn requires the endorser to know your name and click a button. There is no bar for the endorser to clear — they don't need to have any demonstrated competency in the skill they are endorsing. A designer can endorse an engineer for "distributed systems." A recruiter can endorse a data scientist for "machine learning." The system treats these identically.

This is not a bug they forgot to fix. It is a product decision optimized for engagement, not signal quality. Endorsements drive page visits and feel good to give and receive. The fact that they carry no verifiable weight is secondary.

Social currency, not skill currency

Endorsements function as a social norm — a digital handshake between people who worked together and want to maintain goodwill. The implicit contract is reciprocity: endorse me and I'll endorse you back. This is social currency, not skill signal.

The result: people with large networks accumulate endorsements for skills they have never demonstrated. The number on the profile is more a measure of how long someone has been active on LinkedIn than how deep their expertise actually goes.

What peer verification actually requires

For a peer signal to carry weight, three things must be true. The endorser must have demonstrated expertise in the relevant skill. The endorsement must be based on observable evidence — something they watched you do. And there must be accountability — something at stake if the endorsement turns out to be wrong.

Lemma builds peer verification around exactly these constraints. Endorsements on a Lemma passport require the endorser to hold a higher-tier credential in the same skill. The session that generated the evidence is auditable. And because endorser credibility is tied to their own passport, there is a reputational cost to endorsing indiscriminately.

The practical implication for employers

Hiring teams who treat LinkedIn endorsement counts as a signal are introducing noise into their evaluation process. The count tells you almost nothing about actual skill depth — and in some cases, it is inversely correlated, because the people with the most endorsements are often those who have been most active in maintaining their network rather than their craft.

The right move is to stop treating endorsements as evidence and start asking for observable proof: a verified passport, an assessment result, or a portfolio with an auditable trail.