A family in Kalorama spent two months searching for a house manager last year. They interviewed a candidate who seemed great on paper – solid resume, good experience, said all the right things in the first interview. They were ready to make an offer when I asked if I could do a quick call with the candidate first.
Within ten minutes I picked up on things that concerned me. The way she talked about previous employers, how she responded to questions about handling challenges, some vagueness about why she left her last position. Nothing explicitly disqualifying, but enough subtle red flags that I suggested the family do a more thorough second interview asking tougher questions.
That second interview revealed what I’d suspected. She’d had conflicts at multiple previous positions, blamed employers entirely for every issue, and had some worrying gaps in her story about employment dates. They passed on the offer. Three months later we heard through the household staffing grapevine that she’d been fired from another position for performance issues.
Interviews reveal so much if you know what to watch for. Most families focus on whether candidates have the right experience and seem pleasant. But the red flags that predict problems show up in how candidates talk about past work, respond to difficult questions, and present themselves when they think they’re making good impressions.
After twenty years placing house managers in DC and beyond, I can spot these warning signs pretty quickly. Let me show you what to watch for.
How They Talk About Previous Employers
Listen really carefully to how candidates describe families they’ve worked for previously. This tells you more about them than almost anything else in interviews.
Huge red flag: candidates who trash talk previous employers. “That family was impossible to work for.” “They were completely disorganized and unreasonable.” “I tried my best but they just didn’t appreciate good work.” Maybe their previous employers actually were terrible. But professional household staff who’ve had genuinely bad experiences usually describe situations more neutrally. “It wasn’t a good fit” or “our working styles didn’t align” or “the role evolved in ways that didn’t match my skills.”
Candidates who immediately blame everyone else for problems aren’t taking any accountability. That pattern will absolutely continue with your family. When issues come up – and they always do – this person will make everything your fault rather than working collaboratively to solve problems.
Also watch for candidates who can’t say anything positive about previous positions. Every job has some good aspects even if it didn’t work out overall. If someone describes their last three positions as uniformly terrible with nothing they enjoyed or learned, that’s concerning. Either they have incredibly bad luck, or they’re difficult people who find problems everywhere.
On the flip side, candidates who speak respectfully about previous employers even when discussing why positions ended usually demonstrate professional maturity. “The family’s needs evolved and they needed someone with different skills” is honest without being negative. “We had different expectations about the role and mutually agreed it wasn’t the right fit” shows self-awareness.
The best candidates might say things like “I learned a lot from that family even though the position wasn’t ultimately what I was looking for” or “They were great employers but I was ready to take on more complex responsibilities.” These responses show growth mindset and ability to find value in experiences even when they don’t work out perfectly.
Vagueness About Employment Dates or Gaps
When you ask about employment history, candidates should be able to walk through their work timeline clearly. If you’re getting vague or inconsistent answers about dates, something’s up.
Red flags include: “I worked there about two years…or maybe eighteen months…not sure exactly.” Professional house managers know roughly how long they worked places. Vagueness suggests they’re fudging numbers to hide short tenures.
Watch for unexplained gaps. “I left that position in June 2022 and started my current role in March 2023” – okay, what happened during those nine months? Sometimes gaps are completely legitimate. They took time off to deal with family situations, traveled, went back to school, whatever. But they should be able to explain gaps without acting like you’re being intrusive for asking.
Candidates who get defensive about timeline questions are usually hiding something. “Why does it matter exactly when I started?” “I don’t remember specific dates.” “You’re really focused on dates.” These defensive responses suggest employment history has problems they don’t want examined closely.
Also note if stories about previous positions keep changing. First they say they left because the family relocated, then later they mention the position wasn’t a good fit, then when you follow up they say they wanted new challenges. Inconsistent stories mean you’re not getting the truth.
References will clarify actual employment dates, but candidates should be able to discuss their work history accurately during interviews. If they can’t, that’s concerning.
Can’t Give Specific Examples
When you ask candidates to describe situations where they demonstrated relevant skills, pay attention to how specific their answers are. Good candidates provide concrete examples. Problematic candidates stay vague.
Try asking: “Tell me about a time you managed a complex household project.” Strong answer: “Last year I coordinated a kitchen renovation at my previous family’s Georgetown home. I researched contractors, got three bids, managed the timeline, and coordinated with the family about decisions. The project came in under budget and finished on schedule despite some unexpected plumbing issues we solved creatively.”
Weak answer: “Oh, I’ve managed lots of projects. I’m really good at that kind of thing. Projects are no problem for me.” This tells you nothing about actual capabilities.
Ask: “Describe how you’ve handled conflicts with vendors.” Strong answer: “We had a landscaper who kept missing appointments and doing incomplete work. I documented the issues, had a direct conversation about expectations, and when things didn’t improve I researched alternatives and transitioned to a more reliable company.”
Weak answer: “I’m great with vendors. I just stay professional and things work out.” Again, totally vague.
Candidates who can’t provide specific examples either don’t have the experience they claim or aren’t thoughtful about their work. Either way, they’re not what you need.
Unrealistic Salary Expectations
When you discuss compensation, candidates should have reasonable expectations aligned with their experience and DC’s market rates. Red flags show up at both extremes.
Candidates demanding significantly above-market compensation for their experience level either overestimate their value or aren’t serious about the position. A house manager with three years of experience asking for $140,000 in a market where that experience level typically earns $85,000-$100,000 is wildly off.
But extremely low salary expectations can be problematic too. If someone says they’ll work for $60,000 when the role clearly warrants $95,000, either they don’t understand professional household employment standards or they’re desperate for any position and won’t stay once they recognize they’re underpaid.
Good candidates have done market research and know roughly what appropriate compensation looks like. They might have some flexibility in their range but they’re generally aligned with market realities.
Also watch for candidates who won’t discuss salary at all. “I’m sure we can work something out” or “I’m more focused on the opportunity than the money” sounds flexible but actually means they’re avoiding committing to numbers. You need to know their expectations before investing more time.
Poor Communication During the Process
How candidates communicate during interviews predicts how they’ll communicate once employed. Late to interviews without calling ahead? They’ll be late to work. Don’t respond to emails for days then suddenly send urgent messages? That’s how they’ll operate in your household. Miss scheduled calls without explanation? Same pattern will continue.
Watch for candidates who can’t follow simple instructions. If you ask them to send three references and they send one, or you request specific information and they provide something completely different, that’s concerning. House managers need to follow through on requests accurately.
Also pay attention to their written communication if you exchange emails. Massive spelling and grammar errors, unclear messages that require multiple clarifications, or overly casual tone in professional correspondence all suggest communication issues that will create problems daily.
DC house managers particularly need strong communication skills given the professional environment and sophisticated expectations. If candidates struggle communicating clearly during interviews when they’re presumably trying hardest to impress you, it’s not going to improve once they’re working for you.
Can’t Explain Why They’re Leaving Current Position
Every candidate should be able to clearly explain why they want to leave their current role. Legitimate reasons include: seeking positions with more responsibility, current family’s needs have changed, they’re relocating, looking for better compensation, wanting different work arrangements.
Red flags: extremely vague reasons like “just ready for something new” without any specifics, stories that don’t add up, or obvious discomfort with the question.
Also concerning: candidates who immediately launch into complaints about current employers when you ask why they’re looking. Professional people can explain they’re seeking new opportunities without trashing current positions.
If candidates say they’re leaving because they’re not being paid enough, that’s legitimate – but probe whether they discussed compensation with current employers first. House managers who leave without ever raising concerns about compensation might be uncomfortable with direct communication.
Watch out for candidates who claim they’re not actually looking but “just exploring options.” Unless they’re currently unemployed, actively interviewing means they’re looking. Pretending otherwise suggests they’re not being honest with themselves or you about their commitment to making a change.
Lack of Questions About the Position
Interviews should be two-way conversations. Candidates should ask you questions about the role, your household, and expectations. If they don’t, that’s a red flag.
House managers who ask no questions either aren’t seriously evaluating whether the position fits them or they don’t care what the job actually entails as long as they get hired. Neither is good.
Strong candidates ask things like: “Can you walk me through a typical week?” “What are the biggest challenges in managing your household?” “How do you prefer to communicate about household matters?” “What happened to the person who had this role previously?” “What would success look like in the first six months?”
These questions show they’re thinking seriously about whether they can succeed in the role and whether it aligns with their skills and preferences.
Candidates who only ask about benefits, time off, and salary without any interest in the actual work raise concerns. Obviously compensation matters, but it shouldn’t be the only thing they care about.
Rigid About Everything
House managers need some flexibility. Household operations involve unexpected situations, changing family needs, and occasional schedule adjustments. Candidates who are rigidly inflexible about every single aspect of work won’t succeed.
Red flags: “I only work exactly 40 hours per week, never more.” “I need every other Friday off, no exceptions.” “I can’t ever start before 9am.” Some boundaries are totally reasonable, but absolute rigidity about every detail suggests someone who’ll be difficult to work with when normal household flexibility is needed.
This is especially true in DC where political schedules, international travel, and professional demands create unpredictability. House managers here need to roll with changes while maintaining appropriate boundaries.
Obviously you should respect candidates’ reasonable needs around schedule, time off, and work-life balance. But there’s a difference between “I generally need Sundays off but could occasionally flex for special situations with advance notice” and “I will never work Sundays under any circumstances ever.”
Everything Sounds Scripted
Some candidates have clearly memorized impressive-sounding answers to common interview questions. Every response comes out smooth and polished in ways that sound rehearsed rather than genuine.
This is tricky because you want candidates who interview well. But there’s a difference between being prepared and reciting scripts. Scripted answers often lack specific details or real personality. They sound like they could apply to anyone in any position.
Ask unexpected questions that candidates can’t have prepared answers for. “What household task do you find most satisfying?” “Tell me about a time you made a mistake and how you handled it.” “What frustrates you about household management work?” These questions require authentic responses rather than polished scripts.
Candidates who can’t deviate from their prepared answers when you ask follow-up questions are either not being genuine or aren’t thoughtful enough about their work to discuss it beyond surface level.
Won’t Agree to Trial Days
Most professional house manager placements include trial working days before finalizing offers. These days let you see candidates’ actual capabilities rather than just interview performance, and let candidates evaluate whether they want the position.
Candidates who refuse to do trial days raise questions. Why won’t they let you see them actually work? Occasionally legitimate reasons exist – they’re currently employed and can’t take time off. But usually refusal suggests they know their actual work won’t impress as much as their interviews.
Also watch for candidates who want to be paid unusually high rates for trial days or make the logistics unreasonably complicated. Some resistance to trial days is normal – they’re giving you free time to evaluate them. But professional candidates understand trials help both parties and generally accommodate them reasonably.
Trust Your Gut
Here’s the hardest part: sometimes candidates hit no specific red flags but something still feels off. Maybe they seem too perfect. Maybe their energy doesn’t match their words. Maybe you just feel uncomfortable in ways you can’t articulate.
Don’t ignore those feelings. Twenty years of placements have taught me that gut reactions usually reflect subtle cues you’re picking up on even when you can’t consciously identify what’s wrong.
Obviously don’t reject candidates purely on vibes when everything else checks out. But if you’re feeling hesitant, dig deeper. Do more thorough reference checks. Ask harder questions. Take extra time to evaluate. Your instincts are telling you something for a reason.
What to Do When You Spot Red Flags
Not every red flag is automatically disqualifying. Sometimes candidates have good explanations for concerning patterns. Sometimes younger candidates haven’t developed professional polish yet but have good underlying capabilities.
When you notice red flags, probe deeper. Ask follow-up questions. Get clarification. See how candidates respond when you push back on vague answers.
Do thorough reference checks that specifically address your concerns. If a candidate spoke negatively about previous employers, ask references how the candidate handled challenges and feedback. If employment dates seemed unclear, verify timelines with references.
Consider whether the specific red flag actually matters for your situation. A candidate who’s slightly rigid about schedule might work fine if you genuinely need someone predictable. Someone whose written communication isn’t perfect might excel if the role emphasizes operational work over email correspondence.
But don’t talk yourself into ignoring serious warning signs just because you’re tired of searching or the candidate seems “good enough.” Bad hires cost way more than extended searches.
Why This Matters
House managers work in your home, coordinate your household operations, make decisions affecting your daily life, and represent you to vendors and service providers. Hiring someone with serious red flags creates problems that go beyond just mediocre work performance.
Problematic house managers create constant friction and stress. You end up managing them more than they manage your household. The peace of mind you hired them to provide never materializes because you’re perpetually concerned about whether they’re handling things appropriately.
Really bad hires can actively damage your household operations. Poor vendor relationships, budget mismanagement, communication breakdowns, and relationship conflicts all stem from hiring people who showed red flags you ignored.
DC’s household staffing market is competitive and sophisticated. You can absolutely find excellent house managers who demonstrate professionalism, capability, and genuine fit. Don’t settle for candidates showing warning signs just because they’re available or interview reasonably well.
The extra time spent finding truly good candidates pays off in years of excellent household management and genuine peace of mind that operations are handled well.
