$5 billion CEO calls the managers that candidates didn’t list as references—and he’ll even ask the coworkers they clashed with what they really think 62%

By Orianna Rosa Royle64%

7/9/2026, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 24.9% saturation with 221 hits. Analysis detected 2,003 faulty-reasoning hits from 887 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.2% and a BS Rank of 62% (8,442 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.40% of the article peer group.

Job seekers, be warned: the toxic manager you deliberately left off your reference list might already be on the phone with your future boss. 
The CEO of the $4.8 billion software company, Netskope, has revealed he doesn’t just call the names candidates hand over—he also tracks down the ones they left off, to find out what they’re really like. 
“We do a heck of a lot of background checks and references, and a lot of those references are literally just on cultural fit,” Netskope chief Sanjay Beri exclusively told Fortune . 
“So we will try to find people they know, maybe the references they didn’t give.” 
It means (for Netskope applicants anyway) the coworker you butt heads with two jobs ago or the manager you conveniently left off the reference list could already be on a phone call about you before you’ve even had your final interview. 
“I always ask a candidate, ‘tell me your interpersonal style’ and ‘tell me what happens when you have a disagreement or conflict,” Beri said, while adding that he’ll ask the exact same question to the candidate’s former employers. 
“How do they handle conflict? 
How do they handle when they have to do something that they disagree with? 
What happens in hard times?” 
He wants to know how someone behaves in the trenches, as much as in the wins, since, as he put it, building a business is “a jagged line up.” 
And the CEO will even ask references—listed or unlisted—how the candidate got on with peers in typically clashing departments to really test their personality. 
“I would ask, so what does the marketing person think of the head of sales? 
There’s often like some textbook healthy conflicts—and I want to know what those people think.” 
CEO says he’ll take a 9/10 on personality over a 9/10 on talent—every single time 
Since launching in 2012, Netskope has scaled fast: it hit unicorn status in 2018, went public on the Nasdaq last year, and now operates in over 220 countries with more than 3,000 employees. 
That kind of growth means a lot of hiring, fast—and Beri said one bad apple is all it takes to unravel a culture that took years to build. 
“The notion of being open, collaborative and good people matters more than anything, because people make companies—but they also destroy them,” he said, adding that it’s why personality trumps skills when hiring. 
“I would choose a person who is a nine on cultural fit and a seven on domain, versus the opposite every day of the week.” 
And that scrutiny doesn’t end once you’re hired, either. 
“For people that are already at Netskope, we have cultural traits that we rate everybody on—like, are they open, are they collaborative, are they innovative—these things actually not only are talked about in every all hands… but at the end of the year, everybody is actually reviewed on them,” Beri said. 
The top scorers on those cultural traits are recognized company-wide and put on the walls. 
Their rating even affects their performance review—and it’s not just their managers who judge how nice staff is to work with. 
“That review also happens through their peers and could happen from the people that work for them,” Beri added. 
CEOs are increasingly testing personality—they’re using coffee cups and restaurants to do it 
It’s no longer enough to be a star performer with a top degree. 
Today, personality tests are becoming an increasingly popular part of the hiring process. 
$32 billion Twilio CEO Khozema Shipchandler interviews senior candidates specifically for 45-minute dinners—he’s watching how they carry themselves off the clock while also listening for one word in particular. 
Say “I” too much and it signals you’re not a team player. 
Meanwhile, Iñaki Ereño , CEO of the $25 billion healthcare giant Bupa , sits candidates through 6 hours of tests and even wants to see them order wine with their meal because he believes it shows they have initiative. 
One CEO won’t hire anyone who salts their food before tasting it because it’s a red flag they’re impatient. 
Another secretly asks the server to mess up the candidate’s order mid-meal just to see how they react. 
Then there’s the coffee cup test , where CEOs gauge how conscientious you are by how you handle the drink you’re offered after the interview. 
Even the iconic late Apple founder Steve Jobs had a “beer test  where he’d take candidates on an informal walk-and-talk to find out what they’re like off-duty. 
Jobs would then ask himself: “Would I have a beer with this person? 
Would I talk to him or her in a relaxed way while taking a walk?” 
If the answer was no, they weren’t hired. 
And recruiters told Fortune these personality tricks actually work. 
“These skills are critical to success and a very good guide as to how likely someone is to have a positive impact on others or not,” Saira Demmer, CEO of SF Recruitment, said. 
“Culture is such a huge driver of business success that I would applaud any leader who takes the level of care to consistently look for these kinds of details.” 
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.8%Orianna Rosa Royle: 6.7%Fortune: 4.2%Confirmation Bias13.8%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 1.0%Fortune: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Orianna Rosa Royle: 3.6%Fortune: 3.3%Availability Heuristic7.1%This article: 13.8%Orianna Rosa Royle: 3.1%Fortune: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic13.8%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 1.1%Fortune: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Orianna Rosa Royle: 2.4%Fortune: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias3.7%This article: 9.6%Orianna Rosa Royle: 4.8%Fortune: 6.7%Framing Effect9.6%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.2%Fortune: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.7%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.7%Fortune: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.1%Fortune: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Orianna Rosa Royle: 2.4%Fortune: 3.4%Optimism Bias3.3%This article: 2.7%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.9%Fortune: 2.5%Pessimism Bias2.7%This article: 24.9%Orianna Rosa Royle: 6.7%Fortune: 7.0%Negativity Bias24.9%This article: 1.5%Orianna Rosa Royle: 2.3%Fortune: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 1.0%Fortune: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 2.7%Fortune: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Orianna Rosa Royle: 5.8%Fortune: 3.2%Halo Effect7.7%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.5%Orianna Rosa Royle: 1.2%Fortune: 1.5%Recency Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.2%Fortune: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.3%Fortune: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 22.4%Orianna Rosa Royle: 7.5%Fortune: 4.8%Appeal to Authority22.4%This article: 9.6%Orianna Rosa Royle: 3.0%Fortune: 2.2%False Dilemma9.6%This article: 4.6%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.3%Fortune: 1.3%Slippery Slope4.6%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.7%Orianna Rosa Royle: 11.3%Fortune: 6.0%Hasty Generalization15.7%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.6%Fortune: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 1.9%Fortune: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion6.0%This article: 3.7%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.9%Fortune: 1.2%Begging the Question3.7%This article: 3.7%Orianna Rosa Royle: 3.3%Fortune: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.7%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.5%Fortune: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 22.2%Orianna Rosa Royle: 6.7%Fortune: 2.5%Anecdotal22.2%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.2%Orianna Rosa Royle: 3.4%Fortune: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.2%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.6%Orianna Rosa Royle: 1.1%Fortune: 1.5%Unattributed Quote4.6%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 1.1%Fortune: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 22.9%Orianna Rosa Royle: 5.8%Fortune: 4.4%Biased Writer Voice22.9%This article: 7.3%Orianna Rosa Royle: 3.2%Fortune: 1.3%Indoctrination7.3%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Orianna Rosa Royle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Orianna Rosa Royle: 1.1%Fortune: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.7%

887 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers34%attributed speech583writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageSanjay Beri • 32 words • 100.0% coverageSanjay Beri • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageSanjay Beri • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageSanjay Beri • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSanjay Beri • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageSanjay Beri • 32 words • 0.0% coverageSanjay Beri • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSanjay Beri • 51 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSanjay Beri • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageSaira Demmer • 33 words • 0.0% coverageSaira Demmer • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Saira Demmer

100%flagged-word coverage
62 attributed words20% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Indoctrination+40.6 ptsWriter: 6.2%Saira Demmer: 46.8%46.8%Biased Writer Voice-23.5 ptsWriter: 23.5%Saira Demmer: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%Saira Demmer: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%Saira Demmer: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.