5 exercises — practise the professional English for LinkedIn cold messages, responding to recruiter InMail, asking for referrals, and rewriting generic networking messages into ones that get replies.
LinkedIn networking essentials
Cold message: name + why this person + one specific credential + soft CTA — keep it under 100 words
InMail reply (interested): confirm openness + ask about the project/team + propose a call
InMail reply (not now): stay warm + give a brief honest reason + ask them to keep you on their radar
Referral ask: reconnect → name the role → remind them of the relationship → give them an out
Avoid: "pick your brain" · "would love to connect" with no reason · attaching CV without dialogue
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
You want to send a cold LinkedIn message to a senior DevOps recruiter at a company you'd like to work for. Which message is most likely to get a response?
Option B uses the cold message formula that consistently generates higher response rates: ① Use the recruiter's name — personalisation immediately signals this isn't a mass-send. ② Explain why this recruiter / this company — "I noticed you're hiring for DevOps roles at [Company]" shows you've done basic research. ③ One concrete credential — instead of listing everything on your CV, pick one achievement: a technology + a result. "5 years with Kubernetes and CI/CD — led a migration that cut deployment time by 40%." This is immediately interesting to a technical recruiter. ④ Soft call-to-action — "would you be open to a quick chat?" is low-friction. It doesn't demand anything and is easy to say yes or no to.
Cold message template (adapt this): "Hi [Name], I see [Company] is growing its [X] team. I've been working with [technology] for [N] years — most recently [specific achievement]. Would you be open to a brief call to discuss whether there's a fit?"
Option A is generic and passive. Option C is enthusiastic but vague — "culture fit" without evidence isn't compelling. Option D attaches a CV unprompted, which feels presumptuous before any dialogue.
2 / 5
A recruiter sends you an InMail about a Senior Backend Engineer role. You're genuinely interested. Which reply best moves the conversation forward?
Option B is the ideal recruiter InMail reply when you are interested because it: ① Responds promptly and warmly — "Thanks for reaching out!" signals you're engaged (recruiters track response rate and enthusiasm). ② Confirms you're open — "currently open to new opportunities" is the professional way to say "I want a new job" without appearing desperate. It also lets the recruiter use this in their notes. ③ Shows curiosity about the right things — asking about "the project and the team" rather than salary first shows professional maturity. ④ Proposes a concrete next step — "are you available for a call this week or next?" moves from message-thread to conversation, which is where real screening happens.
When responding to recruiter InMail (interested) — key signals to send: Express interest clearly · Mention you're open · Ask one thoughtful question · Propose / agree to a call · Keep it under 100 words
Option A is too short and transactional — it puts all the work back on the recruiter. Option C overwrites the reply with a CV summary — this is for a call, not a message thread. Option D creates unnecessary friction before even confirming interest.
3 / 5
A recruiter messages you about an opportunity but the timing is wrong — you just started a new role three months ago. Which reply is most professional?
Option C is the professionally recommended response for declining a recruiter while maintaining the relationship: ① Personal opener — using the recruiter's name signals this is a genuine reply, not a canned response. ② Gracious tone — "Thanks so much for thinking of me" is important. Recruiters remember candidates who are warm even when declining. ③ Brief honest reason — "just started a new role and want to give it proper time" is honest without oversharing. It frames the decline as a timing issue, not a rejection of the company. ④ Keeps the door open explicitly — "I'd love to stay on your radar" is the key phrase. It gives the recruiter a reason to keep your profile and reason to follow up. ⑤ Sets a timeline — "6–12 months" is specific and makes the follow-up actionable.
Not-now InMail reply formula: "Thanks for reaching out, [Name]. Timing is off for me right now — [brief reason]. That said, I'd love to stay on your radar for future opportunities. Feel free to reach back out [timeframe]!"
Option A is dismissive. Option B implies the recruiter has done something wrong. Option D is accurate but too long and formal — it reads like an excuse rather than a relationship-building reply.
4 / 5
You want to ask a former colleague (you haven't spoken to in 2 years) for a referral at their company. Which LinkedIn message is most appropriate?
Option B demonstrates how to ask for a referral without making it feel transactional or entitled: ① Reconnect naturally first — "hope you're doing well" is brief but human. Jumping straight to the ask (Options A, C) ignores the fact that this is a personal favour from someone you haven't spoken to recently. ② Mention the role specifically — "Senior iOS Engineer opening at [Company]" shows you've done your research. It also makes it easy for your contact to visualise the ask. ③ Reference a genuine memory — "I really respected working with you at [Previous Company]" re-establishes the relationship. It's not flattery — it's reminding them who you are and why you matter to each other. ④ Signal your current skill relevance — "I've been deep into SwiftUI and ARKit since then" quickly establishes that you're up-to-date on the technical stack. This helps your contact decide whether the referral makes sense. ⑤ Give them an easy out — "Totally understand if the timing isn't right" removes pressure and makes the ask feel low-stakes. This counterintuitively increases yes rates.
Referral request formula: Reconnect → Name the role → Remind them of the relationship → Signal skill fit → Make the ask → Give them an out
5 / 5
Which of the following is a strong rewrite of this weak LinkedIn networking message: "Hi, I saw that you work in tech and I was hoping we could connect. I would love to pick your brain and maybe you could share some advice."
Option C transforms the weak message with four targeted improvements:
What's wrong with the original message? ① "I saw that you work in tech" — too vague; shows no real research ② "pick your brain" — widely disliked phrase; implies the recipient's only value is giving away their time for free ③ "maybe you could share some advice" — no specific ask; forces the recipient to guess what you actually want ④ No indication of who you are or why they should care
Why Option C works: ① "I came across your profile while researching backend engineering at scale" — explains exactly how you found them and why you found them relevant ② "I really liked your post about distributed tracing" — shows you engaged with their content; they're a person, not just a job contact ③ "I'm a backend engineer with 4 years of experience exploring opportunities in observability tooling" — tells them who you are in one sentence; gives context for why this conversation makes sense ④ "Would you be open to a 15-minute chat?" — a specific, time-bounded, low-friction ask replaces the vague "pick your brain"
General rule: Specificity is the strongest signal of genuine intent in networking. Generic messages look like mass outreach; specific messages feel like real connection.
Phrases to avoid in networking:"pick your brain" · "synergise" · "circle back" · "I'm just reaching out to connect" (with no reason) · "I saw that you work in [broad field]"