The Resume That Looked Perfect
Here’s something we hear often at Seaside Staffing Company: “I’ve never had household staff before, and I don’t know what I don’t know. How can I tell if a resume is legitimate or if someone is exaggerating their experience?” You’re sorting through responses to your job posting for a nanny in Seattle. One resume looks impressively polished with years of experience, glowing descriptions, and impressive credentials. But something about it feels too perfect, too rehearsed, too good to be true.
After two decades of reviewing thousands of household staff resumes for Seattle families, from Capitol Hill to Medina, we’ve learned to recognize red flags that signal problems long before the interview stage. We’ve caught fabricated employment histories, inflated titles, misleading skill claims, and carefully constructed resumes designed to hide disqualifying issues. We’ve saved families countless hours by screening out problematic candidates based on resume red flags alone.
The work we do at Seaside Staffing Company is never automated, and it’s never one-size-fits-all. We believe in protecting families by teaching them what to look for in household staff resumes, which warning signs should eliminate candidates immediately, and how to distinguish between legitimate experience and clever exaggeration. When you’re reviewing resumes for household staff in Seattle, you need to know what red flags reveal about candidates before you waste time on interviews that will ultimately go nowhere.
Red Flag One: Job Hopping With No Explanation
The first major red flag in household staff resumes appears when you see a pattern of frequent job changes with no explanatory context. The candidate has worked for six different families in five years. Each position lasted only a few months. There’s a new employer every year. This pattern of job hopping without explanation signals serious concerns about reliability, commitment, or performance issues that repeatedly end employment.
Now, let’s be clear about what we’re not saying. Legitimate reasons for job changes exist: families relocate, children age out of needing care, household needs change, personal circumstances require moves. These reasons are understandable and don’t disqualify candidates. The red flag appears when there’s a clear pattern of short tenures with no context provided about why.
At Seaside Staffing Company, we’ve learned that job stability predicts future reliability better than almost any other resume factor. Candidates who’ve stayed with families for years demonstrate commitment, satisfaction, and performance quality that kept families happy. Candidates who change positions every few months are either choosing poorly, performing inadequately, or creating problems that end employment.
Here’s a real story from our Seattle placements. A resume came across our desk for a nanny position with seven different families listed over four years. No explanations for the short tenures. When we called references, we discovered a pattern: the candidate started strong but became increasingly unreliable after a few months, ultimately leading families to end employment. Without those reference checks, the frequent job changes alone told us to look elsewhere. We never presented this candidate to our client family.
What to watch for: multiple positions lasting less than a year each, pattern of three-to-six-month tenures repeated across several jobs, frequent unexplained job changes, or employment history showing inability to maintain long-term placements.
Legitimate candidates can explain why positions ended. They’ll note on their resume when families relocated, when children started school and care was no longer needed, or when household changes affected the role. Candidates who list frequent short-term positions without any context are hiding something.
When you see this red flag, you can give candidates one chance to explain during screening. But if their explanations are vague, blame others, or don’t hold up under scrutiny, move on to candidates with more stable employment histories.
Red Flag Two: Inflated or Vague Job Titles
The second significant red flag appears when household staff resumes list inflated job titles that don’t match the described responsibilities, or use vague titles that obscure what the person actually did. Someone claims to be an “Estate Manager” but their duties were clearly housekeeping. Someone lists themselves as a “Household Director” when they were actually a part-time nanny. Someone uses creative titles that sound impressive but mean nothing specific.
Candidates inflate titles for two reasons: they’re trying to seem more qualified than they actually are, or they don’t understand professional household staffing terminology and are making things up. Either situation is concerning. Legitimate household staff use accurate, standard titles that reflect their actual roles.
At Seaside Staffing Company, we know the standard household staffing titles and what responsibilities typically accompany them. When we see title inflation or vagueness, we investigate thoroughly. Often we discover candidates are misrepresenting their experience level significantly.
Here’s what this looked like recently. A resume listed “Private Estate Manager” as the title for a Capitol Hill position. The responsibilities described included light housekeeping, occasional errands, and pet care. That’s not estate management. That’s a household assistant or housekeeper. When we dug deeper, the candidate admitted they’d essentially been a part-time helper but thought “estate manager” sounded more impressive. That dishonesty eliminated them immediately.
Standard household staff titles include: nanny, senior nanny, newborn specialist, house manager, estate manager, housekeeper, executive housekeeper, private chef, personal chef, family assistant, household assistant, butler, and personal assistant. Variations exist, but these core titles have understood meanings in our industry.
What to watch for: titles that sound overly impressive relative to described duties, creative made-up titles that aren’t standard in household staffing, vague titles that don’t clarify what the person actually did, or inconsistent titles across different parts of the resume for the same position.
Legitimate candidates use accurate titles that reflect their actual roles. If someone is inflating titles, they’re trying to hide that they’re not as qualified as they want to appear.
Red Flag Three: Sparse or Generic Job Descriptions
The third critical red flag appears when household staff resumes provide minimal, generic descriptions of what candidates actually did in their roles. Instead of specific responsibilities and achievements, you see vague statements like “provided childcare” or “managed household” or “responsible for various duties” without any detail about what that actually entailed.
Experienced household staff can articulate specific responsibilities because they actually performed them. They can describe the ages of children they cared for, the size of properties they managed, the number of staff they supervised, the systems they implemented, the challenges they solved. Generic descriptions suggest either the candidate lacks real experience or is being intentionally vague to hide limited capabilities.
At Seaside Staffing Company, we require detailed job descriptions from candidates because specifics reveal truth. We’ve learned that candidates who can’t provide detailed descriptions of previous work usually don’t have the experience they’re claiming.
Here’s an example from our Seattle work. A resume listed “House Manager” for a Bellevue property with the description “managed household operations.” That’s it. No specifics about what operations, how large the household, what systems, what vendors, what staff, what budget. We requested clarification and discovered the candidate had primarily been a housekeeper who occasionally coordinated cleaning service for the family’s vacation home. The vague description had been hiding very limited actual house management experience.
What to watch for: one-line descriptions that could apply to any position, lack of specifics about property size or household composition, no mention of actual systems or processes used, absence of concrete achievements or responsibilities, or descriptions so vague they’re meaningless.
Legitimate candidates provide specific descriptions: “Managed daily operations for 8,000 sq ft waterfront property including supervising housekeeping staff of three, coordinating ten regular vendors, maintaining $150K annual household budget, and overseeing major renovation project” versus “managed household operations.”
If job descriptions are consistently vague across multiple positions, the candidate likely has limited real experience they’re trying to obscure.
Red Flag Four: Unexplained Employment Gaps
The fourth red flag appears when household staff resumes show significant gaps in employment with no explanation provided. Not brief gaps, which can result from personal circumstances, family obligations, or intentional time off. But lengthy gaps spanning years with no context about what the candidate was doing during that time.
Employment gaps aren’t automatically disqualifying. People take time off to raise their own children, care for family members, pursue education, travel, or deal with health issues. These are legitimate, understandable reasons that don’t reflect negatively on candidates when explained honestly.
The red flag appears when gaps exist without explanation. Either the candidate is hoping you won’t notice, or they’re hiding something that happened during that time, often termination from a position they didn’t want to disclose or unemployment resulting from inability to secure work due to poor references.
At Seaside Staffing Company, we always ask about employment gaps during screening. Candidates with legitimate explanations provide them readily and without defensiveness. Candidates who become evasive, defensive, or provide inconsistent explanations about gaps are usually hiding something problematic.
Here’s a Seattle story. A resume showed nanny experience from 2015-2017, then nothing until 2020, then employment through present. No explanation for the three-year gap. When we asked, the candidate initially said they’d been caring for a family member. When we asked follow-up questions, the story changed to traveling. When we pressed for references from before the gap, the candidate became defensive. Eventually we discovered they’d been terminated from the 2017 position and struggled to find work due to poor references. The unexplained gap had been hiding three years of unemployment resulting from a bad termination.
What to watch for: gaps of more than a few months with no context, inconsistent explanations when gaps are questioned, defensiveness about gaps, or patterns of gaps following each position that might indicate repeated terminations.
Legitimate candidates address gaps proactively on their resume or explain them straightforwardly when asked. If a candidate is hiding gaps or being evasive about them, there’s usually a problematic reason why.
Red Flag Five: Too Many Irrelevant Jobs Listed
The fifth red flag appears when household staff resumes are padded with numerous jobs that have nothing to do with household staffing. Someone applying for a house manager position lists their college job at Starbucks, their retail position from a decade ago, their brief stint in an office, and every tangentially related job they’ve ever held.
While career changers certainly exist and previous experience in other fields can bring valuable skills, excessive listing of irrelevant positions often signals someone trying to make a thin household staffing resume look more substantial than it actually is.
At Seaside Staffing Company, we want to see household staffing experience for household staffing positions. Brief mentions of previous career backgrounds can be helpful context. But resumes dominated by irrelevant experience suggest the candidate lacks the specific experience the role requires.
Here’s what this looked like recently. A candidate applied for an estate manager position in Medina. Their resume listed fifteen years of work experience across various industries. Buried at the bottom was six months as a “household assistant.” They were trying to leverage minimal household experience into a senior role by bulking up the resume with unrelated jobs. We focus on relevant experience, and six months as a household assistant doesn’t qualify someone for estate management.
What to watch for: resumes dominated by non-household-staffing positions, relevant experience buried among irrelevant jobs, attempts to make limited household experience seem more substantial by padding with unrelated work, or lack of clear career progression in household staffing.
Legitimate candidates highlight relevant household staffing experience prominently. They might note previous career backgrounds briefly for context, but their household staffing work is featured clearly.
If you’re hiring household staff and the resume is mostly about other industries, the candidate likely lacks the specific experience your household needs.
Red Flag Six: Grammar, Spelling, and Formatting Errors
The sixth red flag appears throughout resumes that contain multiple spelling errors, grammatical mistakes, inconsistent formatting, or general sloppiness in presentation. While one minor typo might be excusable, patterns of errors signal lack of attention to detail and professionalism that will carry into job performance.
Household staff work requires attention to detail. If someone cannot proofread their own resume, which is their professional calling card presented when trying to make the best impression, how will they handle the detailed work household positions require?
At Seaside Staffing Company, we notice resume quality because it predicts professional standards. Candidates who submit sloppy resumes typically demonstrate sloppy work. Candidates who submit polished, professional resumes typically demonstrate those same standards in employment.
A Seattle family once received a resume for a house manager position that contained numerous spelling errors, inconsistent date formats, and obvious copy-paste mistakes where the candidate had left someone else’s information in accidentally. They initially felt bad about judging based on resume errors and considered interviewing anyway. We encouraged them to trust that the resume quality predicted job performance quality. They ultimately hired a candidate with an immaculate resume and told us later they were grateful they’d trusted that initial quality signal.
What to watch for: multiple spelling or grammar errors, inconsistent formatting throughout the document, copy-paste errors that weren’t caught, generally sloppy or unprofessional presentation, or obvious lack of proofreading.
Legitimate professional candidates submit clean, polished resumes. If someone can’t be bothered to carefully prepare their resume, they won’t be careful about your household responsibilities.
Red Flag Seven: Overuse of Buzzwords Without Substance
The seventh red flag appears when household staff resumes rely heavily on buzzwords and trendy language without providing concrete substance. The candidate describes themselves as a “passionate child development specialist leveraging cutting-edge methodologies to facilitate optimal outcomes” when they mean they’re a nanny. They claim to “synergize household operations” when they mean they manage schedules. The resume reads like corporate jargon translated awkwardly to household work.
This language inflation usually signals one of two issues: the candidate is trying to make limited experience sound more impressive, or they’re copying language from resume templates without understanding that household staffing has its own professional terminology.
At Seaside Staffing Company, we value clear, direct communication about experience and skills. The best household staff resumes use straightforward language that accurately describes capabilities without unnecessary inflation.
Here’s what this looked like recently. A resume came across our desk describing the candidate as someone who “architected comprehensive infrastructure solutions for multi-generational family units while optimizing resource allocation.” Translation: they did meal planning and grocery shopping for a family. The buzzword-heavy language was hiding that their actual experience was quite limited and their attempt to make it sound impressive backfired.
What to watch for: excessive use of corporate buzzwords in household staffing context, language that obscures rather than clarifies actual experience, descriptions that sound impressive but don’t actually say what the person did, or obvious attempts to inflate limited experience through fancy language.
Legitimate candidates describe their experience clearly and directly: “Cared for three children ages 2-7 including meal preparation, educational activities, and transportation to school and activities” not “Leveraged pedagogical frameworks to optimize developmental trajectories for multiple stakeholders in the 2-7 demographic.”
If you need to translate a resume from buzzword-speak to understand what someone actually did, they’re probably hiding limited real experience.
Red Flag Eight: No Verifiable Contact Information for References
The eighth critical red flag appears when household staff resumes either don’t list references at all, list only email addresses without phone numbers, provide references with obvious red flags in their own right, or make references seem intentionally difficult to verify.
Professional household staff should have strong references readily available. They should list former employers who can verify employment and speak to performance. The references should have complete, professional contact information. Any resistance to providing verifiable references signals the candidate either doesn’t have good references or is hiding something.
At Seaside Staffing Company, we conduct thorough reference checks for every candidate. We’ve learned that resistance to providing references almost always indicates problems that reference conversations would reveal.
Here’s a Seattle example. A candidate’s resume listed “References available upon request” with no specifics provided. When asked for references, they provided only first names and email addresses, no phone numbers, for people they claimed were former employers. When we insisted on phone numbers to conduct proper reference checks, the candidate became defensive and evasive. Eventually we discovered the “references” were friends, not former employers, and the candidate had been terminated from their last position and couldn’t provide legitimate references.
What to watch for: no references listed at all, only email addresses without phone contact information, vague or incomplete reference information, references listed with only first names, reluctance to provide reference contact information, or any indication that verifying references will be difficult.
Legitimate candidates provide complete reference information including full names, relationship to candidate, and phone numbers for former employers who can verify employment and discuss performance.
If someone makes providing and verifying references difficult, they’re usually hiding problematic employment history.
Red Flag Nine: Claims That Sound Too Good to Be True
The ninth red flag appears when household staff resumes make claims that sound too impressive to be believable. The candidate claims fluency in six languages. They list expert-level skills in an impossibly broad range of areas. They’ve supposedly worked for celebrities, royalty, or ultra-high-net-worth families they name-drop. They claim credentials that seem unlikely or unverifiable.
When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. While exceptional candidates certainly exist, resumes that seem impossibly impressive often involve exaggeration or outright fabrication.
At Seaside Staffing Company, we verify every impressive claim because we’ve caught numerous candidates who embellished or lied about experience, skills, or credentials. The more impressive something sounds, the more thoroughly we verify it.
A candidate once applied claiming to have managed a “royal estate in Europe” before moving to Seattle. Impressive if true. We asked which royal family and received a vague response. We asked for references from that position and were told they’d signed confidentiality agreements preventing any verification. When we pressed, the story fell apart. They’d worked briefly for a wealthy European family but had inflated it to sound more impressive.
What to watch for: claims that seem unlikely given the candidate’s age or career timeline, name-dropping of celebrity or high-profile employers without verifiable references, skill claims that seem impossibly broad, credentials that can’t be verified, or anything that triggers your “too good to be true” instinct.
Legitimate candidates can verify impressive claims. They have references, documentation, or verifiable details. If someone makes impressive claims but can’t or won’t provide verification, assume the claims are exaggerated or false.
Red Flag Ten: Lack of Career Progression or Growth
The tenth and final red flag appears when household staff resumes show no evidence of career progression, skill development, or professional growth over years of employment. Someone has been a nanny for fifteen years with no advancement in responsibilities, skills, or professional development. Someone lists the same duties at every job with no evidence of learning or growth.
This pattern suggests either the candidate isn’t actually gaining experience and developing skills despite time in the field, or they’re not ambitious or invested enough to grow professionally. Either way, it predicts mediocre performance.
At Seaside Staffing Company, we value candidates who show professional growth over their careers. We look for evidence of increasing responsibilities, expanded skill sets, additional training or certifications, or progression from entry-level to senior roles.
Here’s what positive progression looks like: A candidate starts as a nanny, develops specialized skills in early childhood education, takes on additional responsibilities like household coordination, earns relevant certifications, eventually becomes a family assistant or senior nanny. That trajectory shows learning, ambition, and professional investment.
What to watch for: identical job descriptions across many years of employment, no evidence of skill development or increasing responsibilities, lack of any professional development or training, or overall impression that the candidate has been doing the same thing for years without growth.
Legitimate career candidates show progression. They expand their skills. They take on more complex roles. They invest in professional development. If a resume shows stagnation, the candidate probably isn’t someone who will bring initiative or growth to your household.
What To Do With What You’re Seeing
So what should you actually do when you spot these red flags in household staff resumes? At Seaside Staffing Company, we recommend a balanced approach that eliminates clear red flags quickly while giving benefit of doubt when appropriate.
For major red flags like obvious dishonesty, patterns of job hopping without explanation, inflated titles that don’t match responsibilities, or lack of relevant experience, eliminate these resumes immediately. Don’t waste time on interviews that won’t lead anywhere productive.
For moderate red flags like brief unexplained employment gaps or minor formatting issues, you might investigate further through brief screening conversations. Sometimes there are reasonable explanations. But maintain healthy skepticism and verify everything.
For subtle red flags like slightly vague job descriptions or modest use of buzzwords, note your concerns but don’t necessarily eliminate the candidate immediately. Address these issues during screening to determine whether they indicate real problems or minor resume presentation issues.
Here’s what we tell Seattle families: trust your instincts about resumes. If something feels wrong, it probably is. If a resume triggers multiple red flags, that candidate is unlikely to be the right hire. Focus your energy on candidates whose resumes demonstrate clear, honest, relevant experience without warning signs.
The Protection Seaside Provides
While you’ll never see us trying to become the biggest household staffing company, you’ll always see us working hard to remain the best. Part of what makes us best is the thorough resume screening that families never see but that protects them from wasting time on problematic candidates.
We review every resume with twenty years of experience recognizing red flags. We verify claims that sound impressive. We investigate unexplained gaps. We check credentials and certifications. We eliminate candidates with obvious red flags before families ever see their resumes.
When you work with Seaside Staffing Company, you only see candidates whose resumes have passed our rigorous screening. You’re protected from the time-wasters, the fabricators, and the clearly unqualified applicants that would otherwise consume your time and energy.
Let us help you find household staff in Seattle through our proven screening process that catches red flags before they cost you time, money, and frustration.
