Write and maintain a recommendation grounded in the work you actually observed

Choose a contribution you can personally explain

Identify the relationship, period, work context and exact contribution you know. A colleague can describe a useful review without knowing the project’s revenue. Separate what you observed from what someone told you, and omit private client, compensation or performance-review details that are unnecessary for the recommendation.

You do not owe a recommendation because someone requested one or wrote one for you. If you lack firsthand knowledge, decline or offer a narrower factual account. Do not exchange invented endorsements, copy the recipient’s proposed superlatives or adopt a template’s fictional outcome as your experience.

Build a complete specific recommendation

Use a compact sequence: relationship, observed situation, concrete action and the kind of work you can recommend from that observation. A useful statement can explain judgment or care without claiming measured business improvement. Read it as an unfamiliar third party would, including any implied ownership of the whole project.

Constructed complete draft: “I worked alongside Mira while we prepared a reporting handoff. In our review, she noticed that the follower total and new-follower field had different meanings, separated them and wrote the remaining source question clearly. I would value her careful definition work in a reporting team. I did not measure the handoff’s effect on revenue or delivery time.” This is a fictional exercise, not testimony about a real person.

Use the actual relationship and writer-side route

LinkedIn documents a first-degree connection’s profile, More and Recommend, followed by Relationship and Position at the time. Check these fields against the real work before Next and the final Send. A received request opens through its actual LinkedIn message; the guide also provides an ignore/delete choice when you do not want to recommend.

Recipient display is a separate choice. Your Given item and their Received item are different sides of the recommendation. An email quote cannot simply be imported as a native recommendation. Keep your public reuse of their name or project separate from the platform’s recommendation controls.

Resolve three constructed writing and revision cases

R1 — Constructed scope inflation: your notes show one helpful source review, while the requested text says the person led the entire transformation. Decision: use the specific observed contribution, such as the complete draft above, or decline. Outcome: a truthful bounded recommendation rather than an invented leadership credential.

R2 — Constructed revision: you sent a recommendation with the wrong position context and have a corrected source. Decision: inspect the Given item and revise the text deliberately. Outcome: a revised sent version awaiting recipient review; do not report it as already visible on their profile.

R3 — Constructed withdrawal: a recommendation you wrote should be removed. Decision: inspect the writer-side Delete confirmation rather than merely hiding your own display. LinkedIn says removal does not notify the recipient, while a new recommendation does. Outcome: the particular removal must be checked; old screenshots and other quotations remain separate.

Revise or remove the exact item and inspect its state

For a revision, the documented profile route is Recommendations, Edit, Given, the item’s More menu and Revise recommendation, then Send. A recipient revision request provides another route through its message. LinkedIn explicitly says the recipient must review a revision before it appears again; keep that pending state visible.

For deletion, use the writer-side Given controls and read the confirmation. Deleting is a different action from editing or hiding. Reopen the relevant item/result after an authorized change and preserve an unresolved readback rather than repeating the action. Review any quotation or image you control separately.

Keep the evidence and exact wording privately

The worksheet keeps relationship/position, observed work, unsupported requested claims, proposed exact text, sharing review, native action and recipient-review/display state. It can also document a deliberate refusal. Keep names and work details out of public teaching files unless actually authorized.

Primary help was read on 1 November 2026. All examples are constructed; no recommendation or request was sent, revised or deleted. This is the writer’s task, complementary to the existing recipient-side guide. It does not establish reputation, reader preference or hiring results.