LinkedIn as a pressure tool
Recruiters have access to data we often underestimate ourselves. They can see when you were last active, how often you post, whether your CV has a "gap." Your profile says a lot - and not everything it says is what you intended to say.
In the recruiting ecosystem, the green circle is read by a certain type of recruiter as a signal to negotiate. Worth noting: not all recruiters do this. Most work honestly and don't use these tactics. But the mechanism exists and it's worth recognizing. It looks like this: observe, wait for an absence of visible "wins" in the form of new CV entries, offer below-market rates, frame it as concern.
"Things must be hard for you" is not empathy. It's a technique.
Who profits? The intermediary, who buys cheap and sells at market rate. The candidate walks away with half their value. The company thinks it's getting a good specialist at a reasonable price. Nobody along the way checks what happened in between.
Worth noticing too: the "observation" mechanism. A year of monitoring activity to find the moment someone looks weaker - and use it as a pricing argument. That's a strategy. And it's important information about how this firm and this recruiter think about people.
The value of a freelancer - what counts and what the CV doesn't show
Over the course of a year I work with leaders from several different organizations simultaneously. I see how the same dysfunction plays out in a pharmaceutical company, a tech startup, and a service firm. I have comparative context that a salaried coach physically cannot have.
Working in one organization with ten leaders gives you depth. Working with ten leaders from ten organizations gives you depth plus patterns plus transferable insights. That's a different kind of asset - not better or worse, just different. And it has a price.
What do I know as a freelancer that I wouldn't know working full-time? I know how the same technique performs in a hierarchical organization versus a flat one. I know when an "agile problem" is actually a culture problem, not a framework problem - because I've seen it in five different places. I know which tools scale to 200 people and which only work with 20.
That's not textbook knowledge. It's contextual knowledge.
Honestly: freelancing has its costs. No stability, admin work, sales, taxes, gaps between projects, no safety net in the form of an employer. It's not a model for everyone. But the model has value that no full-time employer will price correctly - because they can't see what's beyond their own organization.
How the "observation" pressure mechanism works
Imagine someone watching your work for a year. Not to learn something. To find the moment when you look weaker - and use it as a pricing argument.
That's a specific negotiation strategy. And I have one question about it: what does it say about the company this person represents?
A company whose recruitment culture is built on identifying perceived vulnerability and using it as leverage - what does it look like on the inside? How does feedback after a project work there? How do salary conversations go? How do they negotiate with contractors?
I'm not saying that company is bad. I'm saying: this is a sample. And it's worth looking at that sample carefully before you decide whether you want to go inside.
The green circle became a signal of weakness in that conversation. But in what model of thinking is availability a weakness? In one where everything is positional negotiation - and every piece of information about the other side is ammunition.
Not my model.
How to respond when someone's trying to set you up
Three responses that work. No assertiveness training required, no list of "affirming phrases."
The counter-question. "Where does that rate come from?" One question. Often enough to see whether there's any market analysis behind the offer - or just an assumption about your desperation. The response "because that's the market" demands a follow-up: "which market, what data?" Most below-market offers don't survive that pressure.
Naming the situation. "I understand you're reading the green circle as a signal of availability. It's an imprecise indicator. I'm actively working with several clients - that's just what normal looks like for a freelancer." No anger. Dry and direct. You're not defending yourself - you're informing.
A polite close. "Thank you for the conversation, this isn't a direction that interests me." No further explanation. No apologies. No opening for another round of negotiation. You end it.
The silence after that kind of close can be uncomfortable. Especially if you have a built-in reflex of "but maybe I should try." But that silence is far less uncomfortable than a year of working for half your rate - with a partner who built the relationship on the assumption that you're the weaker side.
That recruiter probably didn't assume I'd write an article. But that's not the point. The point is: the green circle is no longer a signal I have to let cost me.
The post describing that call got 32 comments. There were people who had received identical offers. There were also recruiters who explained that "that's just how the market works" or that "budgets are tight." Both perspectives are useful.
Markets vary. Budgets vary. And recruiters vary too - many of them work honestly and well.
But one mechanism showed up in many comments: LinkedIn activity as a measure of desperation. That's an assumption baked into a certain way of thinking about freelancers. And freelancers should know about it.
The green circle will appear again. Someone will see it and interpret it in their own way.
The question I leave you with: what does the green circle mean to you - when you see it next to the profile of someone you want to talk to? And is your first interpretation a diagnosis of that person, or a diagnosis of your own model of the market?