Job candidates meticulously curate their professional references, handpicking individuals they trust to speak glowingly of their capabilities and character. However, Sanjay Beri, CEO of the rapidly expanding cybersecurity firm Netskope, reveals that his company employs a far more expansive and unconventional approach, extending their vetting process beyond the names provided by applicants. This strategy, which involves actively seeking out and contacting professional acquaintances and former colleagues not explicitly listed by candidates, aims to gain a more authentic understanding of an individual’s cultural fit and behavior under pressure, a critical factor for a company navigating rapid growth in a high-stakes industry.
The Netskope Approach: Unpacking Beri’s Strategy for Deeper Insight
According to a report by Fortune, Beri articulated that Netskope conducts "a heck of a lot of background checks and references," emphasizing that a significant portion of these inquiries are specifically geared towards assessing "cultural fit." This goes beyond merely verifying employment dates or job titles; it delves into the nuances of a candidate’s interpersonal dynamics and adaptability within a corporate environment. Beri explicitly stated, "So, we will try to find people they know, maybe the references they didn’t give." This proactive investigative method underscores a growing trend among some employers to unearth unvarnished perspectives on potential hires.
Beri’s rationale for this rigorous vetting process stems from a desire to understand how candidates truly behave during periods of conflict and difficulty, a dimension often obscured by polished interview responses. During interviews, Beri typically asks candidates to articulate their interpersonal style and describe their approach when confronted with disagreement. Subsequently, Netskope’s team poses similar questions to former employers and other professional contacts, including those not explicitly listed by the candidate. The company also targets individuals who worked alongside the candidate in departments where conflict is inherently more common, believing these interactions offer a more realistic gauge of resilience and collaborative spirit. This multi-faceted approach seeks to bridge the gap between a candidate’s self-presentation and their actual workplace conduct, particularly under duress.
Netskope, founded in 2012, has experienced a meteoric rise in the cybersecurity landscape. The company went public in 2025, a significant milestone reflecting its growing influence and market valuation. By 2026, third-party workforce data estimated Netskope’s employee count at approximately 3,400. Beri characterizes the journey of company-building as "a jagged line up," a metaphor that vividly illustrates the unpredictable and often challenging nature of rapid expansion. This perspective highlights the critical importance of hiring individuals who can not only perform their technical duties but also adapt, collaborate, and contribute positively to a dynamic culture. Beri contends that the financial and operational cost of a poor cultural match escalates dramatically as a company expands rapidly across various functions and geographical locations. A single misaligned hire, especially in leadership roles, can ripple through an organization, impacting team morale, productivity, and ultimately, the company’s trajectory.
Broader Context: The Evolving Landscape of Reference Checks in Modern Hiring
Traditionally, reference checks have been a somewhat perfunctory final step in the hiring process, often limited to verifying employment and perhaps a few pre-approved positive remarks. Candidates typically provide a list of three to five professional contacts, usually former managers, colleagues, or mentors, who are expected to offer favorable testimonials. However, in an increasingly competitive and complex talent market, many employers find these curated lists insufficient for gaining a comprehensive understanding of a candidate’s true potential and fit.
The shift towards more rigorous and unconventional reference checking methods like Netskope’s reflects several broader trends in the modern hiring landscape. Firstly, there’s a heightened emphasis on "soft skills" such as emotional intelligence, adaptability, conflict resolution, and teamwork, which are often difficult to assess through resumes or even structured interviews alone. Secondly, the rapid pace of technological change and market disruption, particularly evident in sectors like cybersecurity, demands employees who are not just technically proficient but also resilient, innovative, and culturally aligned. A candidate’s ability to navigate ambiguity and respond constructively to setbacks has become as crucial as their technical expertise.
The concept of "back-channel" or "off-list" reference checks is not entirely new, though it has historically operated more informally, particularly in close-knit industries such as journalism, finance, or highly specialized tech communities. In these environments, professional networks are dense, and it’s common for hiring managers to reach out to mutual connections for informal feedback on a candidate. What makes Netskope’s approach noteworthy is its formalization and integration into a structured, albeit unconventional, part of their official hiring protocol. This formalization brings both potential benefits in terms of richer insights and heightened scrutiny regarding legal and ethical implications.
Reactions from the Professional Community and Legal Perspectives
Netskope’s candid revelation sparked considerable discussion and mixed reactions within professional circles, particularly on platforms like Fortune‘s LinkedIn post, which amplified the initial report. The debate highlights the tension between an employer’s need for comprehensive due diligence and a candidate’s right to privacy and fairness.
Criticism and Concerns: A significant portion of the feedback raised concerns about candidate protections and fairness. A business consultant questioned the safeguards available to candidates when an unlisted manager might have been toxic or abusive. This perspective argues that bypassing a candidate’s chosen references could inadvertently empower a disgruntled or biased former manager to unduly influence a hiring decision, potentially based on personal animosity rather than objective performance. Critics also pointed out the lack of transparency for candidates, who might never know that an unlisted contact was approached or have the opportunity to address inaccurate or misleading information. The concern is that a candidate might have deliberately omitted a reference due to a genuinely difficult or unhealthy past professional relationship, and contacting such a person could lead to unfair evaluations. This raises fundamental questions about candidate trust and the potential for reputational damage.
Support and Justification: Conversely, many professionals acknowledged the practical value of off-list checks. One journalist commented that informal inquiries are already a common, albeit unstated, practice in close-knit fields like journalism. They viewed such checks as a valuable supplement to traditional resumes and applications, especially in an era where artificial intelligence tools can heavily shape and optimize application materials, potentially masking a candidate’s true self. Another business writer emphasized that unlisted contacts can offer invaluable perspectives on a candidate’s leadership style, conflict-resolution capabilities, and performance under pressure – attributes often difficult to glean from a standard interview or a list of hand-picked references. This view posits that such checks are a necessary tool for discerning genuine talent and character, particularly for senior or critical roles. However, proponents also stressed the importance of handling back-channel checks with extreme care, particularly concerning confidentiality and legal compliance.
Legal and Ethical Considerations in the United States: In the United States, contacting an unlisted former manager is not inherently unlawful. However, the legality and associated risks are highly nuanced, varying significantly by jurisdiction and, crucially, by how the information is collected and subsequently used. Employers must rigorously adhere to guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which prohibits using background or reference information in a way that discriminates against applicants based on protected characteristics such (e.g., race, gender, age, religion, national origin, disability). Questions posed during reference checks must therefore avoid delving into these areas.
Furthermore, employers must be mindful of state-specific rules and regulations concerning background checks and reference inquiries, which can vary widely. Best practices include documenting the legitimate business purpose of all reference checks and applying the process consistently across all candidates to avoid accusations of arbitrary or discriminatory practices.
The central ethical concern revolves around fairness and transparency. A candidate typically lacks knowledge that an unlisted former manager was contacted, and consequently, has no opportunity to respond to potentially inaccurate, misleading, or even malicious information. This is particularly problematic if the candidate excluded a reference precisely because the relationship was toxic, abusive, or simply not representative of their professional capabilities. While not always legally mandated, some legal experts and HR professionals advocate for obtaining explicit consent from candidates before contacting unlisted references, or at least informing them that such checks may occur. This approach, while potentially revealing, enhances transparency and mitigates the risk of legal challenges related to privacy or defamation.
The "Why Now?": Market Dynamics and the Imperative for Robust Hiring
The heightened focus on comprehensive vetting, exemplified by Netskope’s strategy, is not merely an isolated corporate idiosyncrasy but a response to several powerful market dynamics:
- The Cybersecurity Sector: Netskope operates in an industry defined by high stakes, relentless innovation, and a persistent talent shortage. A single security vulnerability or a compromised system can have catastrophic financial and reputational consequences. Consequently, hiring the right individuals—those with not just technical prowess but also unwavering integrity, sound judgment, and the ability to perform under extreme pressure—is paramount. Poor hires in this sector can directly translate to significant security risks.
- Post-Pandemic Hiring Shifts: The global pandemic fundamentally reshaped work environments, accelerating the adoption of remote and hybrid models. This has placed a premium on adaptability, self-management, and effective communication skills in distributed teams. Traditional interview processes often struggle to assess these attributes adequately, driving the need for more in-depth behavioral insights from past colleagues.
- AI’s Influence on Hiring: The proliferation of artificial intelligence in resume screening and initial candidate assessment has introduced a paradox. While AI can make hiring faster and more efficient by sifting through vast numbers of applications, it can also lead to a "sea of sameness" where resumes are optimized to bypass algorithms, potentially masking genuine individual strengths and weaknesses. This phenomenon increases the imperative for human-centric verification methods, like sophisticated reference checks, to truly differentiate top talent and assess nuanced qualities. The original article’s linked content, "AI is devaluing resumes, masking identity, top talent research finds," directly supports this point.
- Economic Climate and Strategic Hiring: In periods of economic uncertainty or strategic growth, companies become more selective with their hires. Every new employee, especially in leadership or critical technical roles, represents a significant investment. Therefore, organizations are increasingly prioritizing quality over quantity, demanding robust vetting processes to ensure that new hires are not only skilled but also deeply aligned with the company’s values and long-term vision.
Implications for Candidates and HR Professionals
Netskope’s approach offers crucial insights and challenges for both job seekers and human resources professionals:
For Candidates:
- Reputation Management: Candidates must recognize that their professional reputation extends far beyond the names they list on a reference sheet. Every interaction, every project, and every relationship forged in their career contributes to their professional narrative.
- Maintaining Professional Relationships: The importance of maintaining positive and respectful professional relationships, even with challenging managers or colleagues, is underscored. A past conflict, if handled poorly, could resurface during an off-list check.
- Transparency and Self-Awareness: Candidates should be prepared for comprehensive scrutiny. Being transparent about past challenges or difficult work environments, and articulating lessons learned, can be more beneficial than attempting to conceal them. This also highlights the importance of self-awareness regarding one’s interpersonal style and conflict resolution approach.
- The "Digital Footprint": While not explicitly mentioned by Beri, candidates should also be mindful of their digital footprint on professional networks (e.g., LinkedIn) and other online platforms, as these can also serve as informal sources for recruiters.
For HR Professionals and Companies:
- Weighing Benefits vs. Risks: HR departments must carefully weigh the significant benefits of gaining deeper, unfiltered insights into candidates against the potential legal and ethical risks associated with off-list reference checks.
- Policy Development and Training: Companies considering such an approach must develop clear, consistent policies and provide thorough training for hiring managers and recruiters on how to conduct these checks legally and ethically. This includes understanding what questions are permissible and how to handle potentially sensitive information.
- Legal Compliance and Documentation: Strict adherence to EEOC guidelines, state laws, and best practices for avoiding discrimination is paramount. Documenting the business rationale for such checks and the information gathered is crucial for legal defensibility.
- Transparency and Candidate Experience: While the goal is to uncover unvarnished truth, companies should strive for transparency where possible. Informing candidates upfront that comprehensive checks, potentially extending beyond their provided list, may be conducted can help manage expectations and build trust. This also necessitates a careful consideration of the overall candidate experience.
- Ethical Framework: Establishing a strong ethical framework for conducting reference checks, ensuring fairness, confidentiality, and due process for candidates, is essential for maintaining a positive employer brand.
Future Outlook: The Evolution of Vetting in a Digital Age
The strategy employed by Netskope and its CEO, Sanjay Beri, signals a potential shift in the rigor and depth of candidate vetting, particularly for high-growth companies in competitive industries. As the talent landscape continues to evolve, driven by technological advancements like AI and changing workforce dynamics, the methods for assessing and selecting talent will inevitably adapt.
It is plausible that formal and informal back-channel reference checks will become more prevalent as companies seek to cut through the noise of optimized resumes and superficial interviews. The interconnectedness of professional networks, facilitated by platforms like LinkedIn, makes it increasingly easier for hiring managers to identify mutual connections and solicit informal feedback. This trend will likely intensify the ongoing tension between efficiency, accuracy, and fairness in hiring.
Ultimately, the emphasis on "cultural fit" and resilience, beyond mere technical competence, is likely to grow. Companies like Netskope, operating in dynamic and high-impact sectors, understand that their success hinges not just on the individual skills of their employees but on their collective ability to collaborate, innovate, and navigate challenges together. The evolution of reference checking, therefore, represents a crucial frontier in the ongoing quest to build high-performing, resilient, and culturally cohesive organizations in the 21st century.
