An uneven process
Companies have established ways to assess candidates. Candidates often have only a few structured conversations to assess the person they may work for every day.
Why ReverseRef exists
Diligence should work both ways.
Employers routinely use interviews, work history, and references to evaluate candidates. Candidates usually have far less independent information about the manager who will shape the role.
More context for candidates
Relevant firsthand context can help a candidate understand a manager’s communication, expectations, feedback, autonomy, and working style before deciding.
Mission and vision
Give candidates enough information to choose with confidence.
Our mission
Give candidates private, trustworthy context about the manager they may work for before the decision is locked in.
Our long-term vision
A hiring market where candidates can do serious diligence too, and where firsthand workplace experience can help someone else without becoming a public identity trail.
Independent by design
Founder-operated and accountable to candidates.
ReverseRef is currently self-funded and founder-operated. Its business model is candidate-paid, not employer-funded. Employers and managers connected to a case cannot buy access to the service, a report, or participant information.
That independence protects the purpose of ReverseRef: help a candidate understand the manager relationship before accepting a role. It also leaves room for clear accountability. Material changes to ownership, funding, the business model, service providers, or privacy practices will be stated plainly in updated public policies.
Honest about what has and has not been reviewed
ReverseRef has not yet completed an independent security or privacy audit and is not presented as audited or certified. Privacy, security, verification, and deletion practices are being documented from the beginning so they can be tested through independent assessment as the service grows.
Why this needs to exist
Both sides are making a consequential choice.
A company has a well-developed process for deciding whether a candidate is right for the role. The candidate is making a decision of similar importance, but usually has much less independent information about the person who will shape the work.
The missing piece is not another rating or a public review. It is relevant, firsthand context from people who actually reported to that manager, gathered privately and weighed against the role the candidate is considering.
Our point of view
Better information helps both sides choose.
Candidates deserve specific, contextual, firsthand information before they commit years of their working lives. Managers also benefit when candidates understand their real style and knowingly choose the environment. Better information makes consent more informed and fit more honest.
Good diligence should help both people understand the working relationship they are choosing.
Technology with boundaries
Privacy is part of the system design.
The workflow links findings to verified source relationships, source agreement, recency, and role relevance while keeping identity data out of the candidate-facing report. Software helps with structure, traceability, and consistency checks. People remain responsible for consent, verification, interviews, de-identification, and final judgment.
Evidence without an identity trail
The candidate sees how many verified participants support a finding, where accounts differ, and what remains unknown. They do not receive participant names, direct contact details, or raw interview transcripts.
A private, human process.
ReverseRef is designed to make candidate diligence more practical through candidate-only use, human review, verified relationships, participant control, and careful de-identification.
Read our trust approach