A family in Medina was days away from hiring an estate manager when we conducted final reference checks. The candidate had interviewed beautifully, presented impressive credentials, and seemed perfect for their complex household managing multiple properties. But when we spoke with her most recent employer, the reference conversation revealed concerns that hadn’t surfaced during interviews. The previous family described communication breakdowns, difficulty accepting feedback, and operational decisions that cost them substantial money unnecessarily. These weren’t deal-breaker termination issues, but they painted a picture substantially different from what the candidate had presented. That reference check saved this Seattle family from an expensive hiring mistake. After twenty years of placing estate managers throughout Seattle and nationwide markets, we’ve learned that reference checks represent the single most important component of estate manager hiring beyond interviews themselves. What references reveal about candidates’ actual performance, working styles, and professional conduct often differs dramatically from what candidates present about themselves. Certain red flags during reference conversations should stop hiring processes cold regardless of how impressive candidates seem otherwise. Here’s what to listen for.
Vague or Lukewarm Endorsements
The most subtle but significant red flag appears when references provide technically positive feedback that somehow lacks genuine enthusiasm or specificity. These references might say things like “She did fine,” “He was adequate,” “The work was acceptable,” or “We didn’t have major problems.” None of these statements are explicitly negative, but they’re noticeably different from the enthusiastic endorsements that excellent estate managers generate.
When previous employers genuinely valued estate managers’ contributions, their endorsements reflect that appreciation clearly. They volunteer specific examples of excellent work without being prompted. They describe with enthusiasm how the estate manager solved complex problems, improved operations, or handled difficult situations impressively. They express genuine disappointment about the employment relationship ending and mention they’d rehire the person immediately if circumstances allowed.
Lukewarm references suggest candidates performed adequately enough to avoid termination but didn’t particularly impress their previous employers. Perhaps the candidate lacked initiative and required constant direction. Maybe they completed assigned tasks competently but never proactively identified improvements or anticipated needs. Possibly they had interpersonal limitations that made working with them less pleasant than it should have been.
The challenge with lukewarm references lies in what they don’t say rather than what they explicitly state. Professional references rarely trash talk former employees even when performance was poor. Employment law considerations and basic professionalism mean most references keep criticism relatively mild. But the absence of enthusiasm, the lack of specific positive examples, and the general “meh” quality of lukewarm endorsements reveals dissatisfaction that polite references are trying to communicate indirectly.
When you encounter vague or lukewarm references, probe deeper with specific questions. Ask about particular aspects of performance rather than accepting general assessments. “Can you give me an example of a complex project this person managed successfully?” “How did they handle unexpected challenges?” “What would you say were their greatest strengths in the role?” If the reference struggles to provide concrete positive examples, that struggle itself constitutes a red flag.
Seattle’s professional culture tends toward politeness and conflict avoidance. References from Seattle employers might be particularly diplomatic even when they’re effectively warning you away from candidates. Listen carefully for what’s missing from conversations as much as what’s actually stated.
Reluctance to Rehire
One of the most revealing questions in reference checks is straightforward: “Would you hire this person again if circumstances allowed?” The answer and particularly how references arrive at that answer tells you enormous amounts about candidate quality.
Excellent estate managers generate immediate, enthusiastic “absolutely” responses to this question. Previous employers who truly valued estate managers want to communicate clearly that they’d jump at opportunities to work together again. They might even express regret that circumstances prevent them from making offers to bring the person back.
When references hesitate, qualify their answers, or provide reluctant affirmatives, serious concerns exist even if they’re not articulated explicitly. Responses like “Well, it would depend on the situation,” “Maybe for the right role,” “I’d have to think about that,” or long pauses before answering all signal problematic aspects of previous employment relationships.
Ask follow-up questions when you detect reluctance. “What circumstances would need to be different for you to consider rehiring?” “What concerns would you want to address before bringing this person back?” “Were there aspects of their performance or working style that gave you pause?” These probing questions often reveal issues that polite references were reluctant to volunteer without being asked directly.
Some references will cite legitimate reasons they wouldn’t rehire that don’t reflect negatively on candidates. “Our household needs changed substantially and we no longer need an estate manager,” “We relocated permanently and couldn’t offer comparable positions,” or “The person has advanced beyond the level of position we could provide” all represent reasonable explanations for why rehiring isn’t realistic despite excellent past performance.
But vague or concerning reasons for reluctance, unwillingness to explain hesitation, or clear discomfort with the question itself should raise serious concerns about how previous employment actually went regardless of what candidates told you during interviews.
Pattern of Short-Term Employment
Reference checks often reveal employment duration patterns that candidates downplayed or explained away during interviews. When multiple previous employers describe employment lasting only six months, nine months, or a year before candidates departed, you’re seeing a pattern that predicts future behavior regardless of what candidates claim about why each position ended.
Candidates typically have explanations for each short tenure individually. This family relocated unexpectedly. That position turned out to involve responsibilities different from what was described. This employer had personal issues that made the household difficult. Each explanation might sound reasonable in isolation, but the cumulative pattern reveals candidates who either can’t assess positions accurately before accepting them, struggle adapting to household employment realities, or have performance or interpersonal issues that consistently lead to departures.
During reference checks, ask specifically about employment duration and circumstances surrounding departures. “How long did this person work for your household?” “What led to the employment relationship ending?” “Were there signs during their tenure that suggested the position might not work long-term?” These questions surface information that helps you evaluate whether pattern continues or whether candidate has genuinely addressed whatever drove previous short tenures.
Some turnover happens for legitimate reasons that don’t reflect negatively on estate managers. Family relocations, major household changes, or candidates progressing into substantially more senior roles all represent normal career progression. The key differentiator between normal progression and concerning pattern lies in whether departures resulted from circumstances beyond candidates’ control or from performance issues, difficult working relationships, or candidate dissatisfaction that could easily recur.
When you identify patterns of short employment, probe whether those patterns have continued into more recent positions or whether candidates have demonstrated capacity for longer-term employment stability once they gained more experience or maturity. Recent three-year tenure after several earlier short positions suggests growth and development. Consistent pattern of eighteen-month positions throughout their career predicts that pattern will likely continue with you.
Seattle’s strong job market and competitive household staffing landscape means estate managers with options sometimes move between positions seeking better compensation or opportunities. Some position changes reflect reasonable career progression. But frequent moves driven by performance issues or interpersonal difficulties rather than advancement represent genuine red flags.
Difficulty Accepting Feedback or Direction
Estate managers who can’t accept feedback, resist direction, or become defensive when employers provide guidance create ongoing management challenges that erode working relationships progressively. Unfortunately, this characteristic rarely surfaces clearly during interviews because candidates present their most accommodating, cooperative selves. Reference checks reveal whether candidates actually worked well with feedback in practice.
Listen for references describing challenges around feedback and direction. Comments like “She sometimes struggled when we asked her to adjust her approach,” “He preferred doing things his own way,” “We had to have several conversations about the same issues,” or “Getting her to incorporate our preferences took more effort than expected” all signal difficulty accepting direction.
Ask specific questions about this during reference calls. “How did this person respond when you provided feedback about their work?” “Were there times when they needed to adjust their approach based on your preferences? How did that go?” “When you and this person disagreed about how something should be handled, how was that resolved?” These targeted questions surface information references might not volunteer spontaneously.
Excellent estate managers incorporate feedback gracefully even when it requires changing established approaches. They recognize that families’ preferences matter more than estate managers’ preferred methods. They adjust their working styles based on guidance without becoming resentful or defensive. They ask clarifying questions when feedback isn’t clear rather than proceeding with their original approach.
Estate managers who struggle with feedback create exhausting employment relationships. Families find themselves having the same conversations repeatedly without seeing meaningful changes. The mental energy required to manage estate managers who resist direction negates much of the value they should provide by handling household operations independently.
This red flag matters particularly for families with strong preferences about household operations or those who’ve developed specific systems they want maintained. Estate managers who insist on their own approaches regardless of employer preferences make poor fits for these situations.
The challenge is that candidates often misrepresent this characteristic dramatically. They describe themselves as highly coachable and flexible when in reality they resist any suggestion that their approaches might need modification. Only reference conversations with people who’ve actually worked with them daily reveal the truth.
Financial Irregularities or Poor Judgment
The most serious red flags during reference checks involve concerns about financial management, expense decisions, or judgment around household resources. Estate managers handle substantial household budgets, make purchasing decisions, coordinate with expensive vendors, and manage operations involving significant expenditure. Problems in these areas create liability exposure for families that goes well beyond typical performance issues.
References sometimes hint at financial concerns rather than stating them explicitly due to worry about defamation claims. Listen carefully for qualified statements about budget management, purchasing decisions, or expense oversight. Comments like “We eventually had to require approval for all purchases above certain amounts,” “There were some discrepancies in expense reporting that we addressed,” “They sometimes made purchasing decisions that didn’t align with our budget priorities,” or “We implemented additional oversight of financial aspects” all suggest problems even though they’re phrased diplomatically.
Ask direct questions about financial management during reference checks. “How did this person handle household budgets?” “Were expense reports accurate and timely?” “Did they make appropriate purchasing decisions?” “Were there ever concerns about financial management or spending?” “How did they coordinate with you about significant expenses?” These questions communicate that you take financial integrity seriously and need honest feedback about candidate reliability in this area.
Even when overt dishonesty isn’t involved, poor financial judgment represents a serious concern. Estate managers who consistently overspend budgets, make expensive purchasing decisions without considering cost-benefit ratios, fail to negotiate with vendors effectively, or waste household resources through inefficiency create financial problems that accumulate substantially over time.
Seattle’s expensive market means estate manager decisions about vendors, purchasing, and resource allocation affect household expenses significantly. Estate managers with poor judgment about cost versus value, those who default to expensive solutions without considering alternatives, or those who aren’t strategic about budget management cost families tens of thousands of dollars annually through cumulative poor decisions.
When references express any concerns about financial management, probe extensively to understand the nature of issues. Distinguish between genuine integrity problems that should disqualify candidates completely and judgment issues that might be addressable through clear expectations and appropriate oversight.
Financial red flags should stop hiring processes cold in most cases. The liability exposure and the breach of trust involved make recovering from financial impropriety nearly impossible even if other aspects of performance are strong.
How to Conduct Effective Reference Checks
Getting references to reveal these red flags requires conducting thorough, strategic reference conversations rather than perfunctory checks that verify employment dates and basic information. Call references personally rather than accepting written references or having someone else conduct calls. The tone, hesitation, and nuance in verbal conversations reveals information that written references never capture.
Ask open-ended questions that require substantive answers rather than yes-no questions. “Tell me about this person’s greatest strengths in the estate manager role” generates much more useful information than “Was this person good at their job?” Follow-up questions based on initial responses lead to deeper understanding than scripted question lists.
Listen carefully to what references don’t say as much as what they explicitly state. Absence of enthusiasm, gaps in coverage of important competency areas, and general lack of specific positive examples all communicate concerns even when nothing explicitly negative gets stated.
Create comfortable conversation environments that encourage candor. Acknowledge that you understand references need to be careful about what they share, express that you’re looking for honest assessment rather than just confirmations of what candidates told you, and demonstrate through your questions that you’re sophisticated enough to read between lines when necessary.
Check multiple references rather than relying on single conversations. Patterns across multiple references are far more reliable than individual assessments which might reflect personality conflicts or unusual circumstances rather than candidate’s typical performance.
Be especially diligent about checking references from most recent positions. Candidates sometimes provide references from early career positions where they performed well while omitting more recent positions where problems developed. Insist on speaking with recent employers even if candidates express reluctance.
When Red Flags Should Stop Hiring
Not every concern raised during reference checks necessarily disqualifies candidates, but certain red flags should stop hiring processes immediately regardless of other positive factors. Any suggestion of dishonesty, financial impropriety, or ethical violations represents absolute disqualifiers with no exceptions. These integrity issues predict future problems that will inevitably emerge regardless of how careful you are about oversight.
Multiple references expressing similar concerns about performance, working style, or interpersonal issues indicates patterns rather than isolated incidents or personality conflicts. When patterns emerge across multiple reference conversations, believe what you’re hearing regardless of how impressive candidates seemed during interviews.
Reluctance from all references to endorse rehiring or provide enthusiastic recommendations suggests problems significant enough that previous employers want to communicate warnings without explicitly trash-talking former employees. This universal lukewarm response indicates candidate limitations are real and substantial.
References unable to provide any specific examples of excellent performance despite candidate claiming major accomplishments suggests either candidate exaggerated their achievements dramatically or previous employers found performance so unmemorable that nothing positive stands out worth mentioning. Either scenario represents problems.
The Seaside Staffing Company Approach
At Seaside Staffing Company, we conduct extensive reference checks on all estate manager candidates before presenting them to families. We speak with multiple previous employers, ask probing questions that surface concerns, and listen carefully for red flags that suggest candidates might not perform as impressively as they interview.
We’ve learned after twenty years that references provide the most reliable information available about candidate quality. Interviews reveal how candidates present themselves and what they want you to believe about their capabilities. References reveal how candidates actually performed in similar roles under real-world household employment conditions.
We tailor-fit our reference checking approach to each candidate’s specific background and the position requirements. Never automated, never one-size-fits-all. Estate manager positions involve substantial responsibility and significant trust, so thorough vetting protects both families and our reputation for quality placements.
When we identify serious red flags during reference checks, we address concerns directly with candidates to understand their perspectives. Sometimes candidates have legitimate explanations that references couldn’t provide. Other times candidate responses to reference concerns reveal defensiveness or dishonesty that reinforces rather than alleviates our concerns.
We won’t present candidates to families when reference checks reveal disqualifying red flags regardless of how impressive their resumes or interviews were. Our commitment to uncommonly good matches requires declining to support placements when we have genuine concerns about candidate quality or fit.
The families who work with us long-term appreciate this rigorous approach. They recognize that our selectivity protects them from expensive hiring mistakes and ensures they only meet candidates we genuinely believe will succeed in their households. The quality of our placements reflects the care we take in vetting candidates thoroughly including comprehensive reference checks that go well beyond perfunctory employment verification.
Understanding what red flags to listen for during estate manager reference checks helps families avoid candidates with performance issues, integrity concerns, or working style limitations that would make employment relationships unsuccessful. The investment in thorough reference checking prevents the much larger costs of hiring mistakes that require restarting searches after several months of problematic employment.
