A potential client called us from La Jolla several years ago seeking an estate manager. During our initial consultation, she explained her needs, described her household, and outlined her expectations. Everything seemed straightforward until she mentioned casually, “My last three estate managers all left within six months. They just couldn’t handle the work.” That single sentence raised immediate red flags that made us carefully evaluate whether this would be a placement we could support. After twenty years of placing household staff throughout San Diego and nationwide markets, we’ve learned that some client relationships simply won’t work regardless of how carefully we match candidates. We’ve also learned that declining to work with families who display certain red flags protects both our candidates and our reputation more effectively than taking on every client who contacts us. This might sound surprising. Most agencies position themselves as eager to work with any family willing to pay fees. But here’s our honest perspective: turning down clients who show specific warning signs represents one of the most important ways we create uncommonly good matches for everyone involved.
Pattern of High Staff Turnover
The most significant red flag appears when families have patterns of frequent household staff turnover. One staff member leaving after a reasonable period might reflect normal career progression or life changes. Multiple staff members leaving within short timeframes suggests problems with how that household treats employees.
When families mention casually that they’ve had three housekeepers in two years, four nannies in eighteen months, or estate managers who consistently leave within their first year, we ask detailed questions about what happened. Sometimes legitimate circumstances explain the pattern. The family relocated between positions, they had major life transitions affecting household staffing needs, or they genuinely had bad luck with a few problematic hires.
More often, high turnover patterns reveal families who create difficult working environments. They might have unrealistic expectations that no employee can meet. They might change requirements constantly without acknowledging the confusion this creates. They might provide inadequate compensation for the work they expect. They might fail to respect professional boundaries. They might be simply unpleasant to work for in ways that drive away even excellent staff.
We listen carefully to how families describe previous staff members who left. Do they take any accountability for the relationship difficulties, or do they blame every departing employee? Do they recognize patterns in the feedback they’ve received, or do they insist each person who left was just a bad hire? Do they seem genuinely puzzled about why staff don’t stay, or do they acknowledge their household presents particular challenges?
Families who show genuine self-awareness about their role in previous unsuccessful staffing relationships might be worth working with if they’re committed to changing patterns. Families who consistently blame everyone else and take zero accountability for repeated relationship failures represent risks we typically decline.
San Diego’s household staffing community is relatively small. Word travels about difficult employers. When we hear from multiple sources that a family is challenging to work for, we take that information seriously. Placing candidates with families known for high turnover or poor treatment of staff damages our reputation with the professional community we depend on.
Unrealistic Compensation Expectations
Some families want Neiman Marcus service at Target prices. They describe complex household staffing needs requiring sophisticated skills and extensive experience, then express shock when we provide market-appropriate compensation ranges. They insist that household staff should just love their work so much that compensation doesn’t matter, or they compare household positions to unrelated roles that pay less while ignoring the actual market realities.
We understand that household staffing represents significant investment. Professional estate managers, house managers, and private chefs command substantial compensation because they bring genuine expertise that improves household operations dramatically. Families who genuinely can’t afford market-appropriate compensation for the roles they need aren’t bad people, but we can’t help them hire professional staff while underpaying those employees.
The red flag appears when families refuse to accept market realities even after we’ve explained them clearly. They insist they should be able to hire experienced estate managers for $60,000 annually in expensive markets. They want private chefs with restaurant experience to work for housekeeper wages. They expect candidates with master’s degrees and ten years of experience to accept entry-level compensation.
These unrealistic expectations create several problems. First, excellent candidates won’t accept positions with below-market compensation, so families pursuing unrealistic salary targets only access mediocre talent. Second, even if we somehow convinced a qualified candidate to accept inadequate pay initially, they’ll leave as soon as they recognize their market value. Third, underpaying professional staff creates resentment that undermines working relationships regardless of other factors.
We sometimes work with families to right-size their expectations. Maybe they actually need a house manager rather than an estate manager, which brings compensation into affordable range. Perhaps they should start with part-time support rather than full-time positions. They might benefit from redefining scope to match realistic budgets. When families are genuinely open to these conversations and willing to adjust their approach, we can often find solutions.
When families insist on unrealistic compensation despite clear market information and refuse to modify their expectations, we decline the engagement. We won’t ask candidates to accept positions that undervalue their skills and experience, even if families are willing to underpay.
Boundary and Respect Issues
Professional household staffing relationships require clear boundaries, mutual respect, and recognition that staff are employees rather than servants, friends, or family members. Families who blur these lines or fail to maintain appropriate professional relationships create working environments where even excellent staff struggle.
Red flags in this area appear during initial consultations. Families who refer to household staff as “the help” or use demeaning language signal attitudes that make professional relationships difficult. Those who describe expecting staff to be available “whenever we need them” without respect for work hours or time off demonstrate boundary problems. Families who want staff to be “like family” often fail to maintain the professional distance that makes employment relationships sustainable.
We listen for expectations that cross professional boundaries. Families wanting live-in staff but describing inadequate private accommodations show they don’t respect staff members’ needs for genuine personal space. Those expecting staff to work extreme hours routinely without acknowledging the burden signal lack of respect for employees’ wellbeing. Families describing previous staff who “took advantage” by using agreed-upon vacation time or requesting overtime pay often reveal entitled attitudes about employment relationships.
San Diego’s lifestyle sometimes creates particular boundary challenges. Families spending significant time at beach homes or traveling internationally sometimes assume household staff should always be available to join them regardless of staff members’ personal lives or families. Professional household employees absolutely travel with families when that’s part of position agreements, but the expectation that staff exist solely to serve family needs without their own lives represents a problematic attitude.
Cultural expectations around household staff vary. Some families come from backgrounds where household employees had dramatically different status than in modern American professional household staffing. We work with families to understand current professional standards and appropriate relationship dynamics. When families are genuinely open to learning and adjusting their approaches, these situations can work. When families insist their problematic attitudes are just “how things are done” and refuse to adopt professional standards, we decline the engagement.
Poor Communication During the Hiring Process
How families communicate during initial interactions reveals a lot about how they’ll treat household staff. Families who are disorganized, disrespectful, or difficult to work with during the hiring process will likely be worse once someone is employed.
Red flags include families who miss scheduled consultations without notice or explanation, those who fail to respond to communications for extended periods then suddenly demand immediate action, families who are rude or dismissive to our staff while expecting excellent service for themselves, and those who repeatedly change their requirements without acknowledging the disruption this creates.
We also watch for families who treat the hiring process as entirely one-sided. They expect candidates to be completely flexible and accommodating while showing no consideration for candidates’ time or circumstances. They demand working interviews on short notice without offering compensation. They expect candidates to wait indefinitely for decisions while they take their time evaluating. They ask intrusive personal questions during interviews while refusing to provide basic information about compensation or position details.
Professional household staffing relationships require mutual respect and good-faith cooperation. Families who demonstrate during hiring that they view the relationship as one-sided and expect all accommodation to flow from staff toward them create working environments that professional staff won’t tolerate long-term.
Unwillingness to Provide Essential Information
Successful household staff placements require clear understanding of position requirements, compensation, household dynamics, and expectations. Families who refuse to provide essential information during the hiring process raise serious concerns about transparency and professional conduct.
Some families won’t disclose compensation ranges, insisting candidates should just name their desired salary without any position context. This approach wastes everyone’s time and suggests families want to manipulate negotiations rather than engage in good-faith hiring. Professional employment relationships begin with transparent compensation discussions.
Other families are vague about actual job requirements. They describe needing “someone to help around the house” without defining specific responsibilities, hours, or expectations. This ambiguity often masks situations where families want employees to handle whatever comes up whenever it comes up without clear boundaries or reasonable scope definition.
We also encounter families unwilling to discuss household dynamics that significantly affect working conditions. They won’t mention that they work from home full-time and staff will have zero privacy during work hours. They don’t disclose that multiple family members have strong opinions about how household operations should run and staff will receive conflicting direction constantly. They fail to mention house guests stay for extended periods or that extended family members treat household staff poorly.
These omissions might seem strategic from families’ perspectives. They worry honest disclosure will make positions less appealing. But professional candidates need accurate information to make informed decisions about whether positions fit their needs and capabilities. Withholding material information creates mismatched hires that fail quickly once reality becomes apparent.
When families resist providing information essential for proper matching after we’ve explained why it matters, we typically decline the engagement. We can’t create good matches without adequate information, and families unwilling to provide it aren’t ready to engage professional household staffing services appropriately.
Viewing Staff as Status Symbols
Some families want household staff primarily for status rather than because they genuinely need the help. They view having an estate manager or private chef as markers of wealth and success rather than as professional relationships that improve household functionality. This attitude creates problematic employment situations.
These families often care more about impressive titles than actual job functions. They want to tell friends about their “estate manager” even though they don’t have genuine estate management needs. They want a “private chef” for status even though they rarely eat at home. The positions become more about appearances than operational necessity.
Staff employed primarily as status symbols face several challenges. Their actual work may not justify their roles, creating questions about value. Families may be more interested in name-dropping their staff than in the work those staff actually perform. The relationships lack the genuine respect that comes when families truly need and appreciate the contributions staff make.
We’ve also encountered families in San Diego who want household staff specifically to display wealth to neighbors or social circles. They’re less concerned with finding candidates whose skills match their actual needs than with hiring people who project particular images. This superficial approach to household staffing consistently produces problematic relationships.
Professional household staff want to work for families who genuinely value their contributions and treat employment relationships with respect. When we sense families view positions primarily as status symbols rather than professional services addressing real needs, we carefully evaluate whether placements will satisfy either party involved.
The Conversation We Have
When we identify red flags during initial consultations, we don’t immediately refuse to work with families. We have direct conversations about our concerns and what would need to change for us to support the search successfully.
Sometimes families genuinely don’t understand how their approach creates problems. They’ve never employed professional household staff before and don’t know professional standards. They’re bringing attitudes from other contexts that don’t translate appropriately. When we explain clearly and families show willingness to adjust their thinking and approaches, these situations often work out well.
Other times families become defensive when we raise concerns. They insist their previous staff were all incompetent rather than considering their role in unsuccessful relationships. They argue that household staffing markets must be wrong if compensation exceeds what they think it should be. They reject feedback about boundary issues or communication problems. These defensive responses reinforce our concerns rather than alleviating them.
We approach these conversations with respect and genuine desire to find solutions when possible. We tailor-fit every potential engagement to family circumstances and candidate capabilities. Never automated, never one-size-fits-all. But we also maintain professional standards about the types of placements we’ll support.
Why Saying No Protects Everyone
Declining to work with families who display serious red flags serves multiple important purposes. Most fundamentally, it protects household staff from problematic employment situations. We have obligations to candidates we place to ensure positions will provide professional working environments, appropriate compensation, and reasonable treatment. Placing staff with families showing red flags violates that obligation regardless of fees we might earn.
It also protects our reputation with the professional household staffing community. Estate managers, house managers, private chefs, and other staff talk with each other. They know which agencies consistently place them well and which agencies prioritize fees over candidate welfare. Our ability to attract excellent candidates depends on our reputation for supporting them appropriately.
Declining problematic clients protects families too, though they might not initially see it that way. Taking their money to conduct searches unlikely to succeed wastes their resources and time. Failed placements disrupt households significantly. Working with agencies willing to be honest about concerns and limitations serves families better long-term than working with those who take every client regardless of red flags.
It protects our team’s time and energy. Difficult clients drain resources that could be invested in supporting families who are genuinely good to work with and candidates who deserve excellent placements. Every hour spent on a problematic engagement is an hour not spent creating uncommonly good matches elsewhere.
The Seaside Staffing Company Standard
At Seaside Staffing Company, we’ve built our reputation over twenty years by being selective about the placements we support. 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 maintaining that standard involves declining clients who display red flags we know lead to problematic placements.
We’re direct with families about our concerns when we identify issues during initial consultations. We give families genuine opportunities to address concerns and adjust their approaches. Many families genuinely appreciate this honesty because other agencies haven’t provided clear feedback about how their approach creates problems.
When families show willingness to engage professionally, maintain realistic expectations, treat staff with respect, communicate effectively, and create working environments where professional staff can thrive, we’re eager to support their searches. We work with families across wealth levels and household complexity when they approach staffing professionally.
But when families display significant red flags and show unwillingness to address fundamental issues, we respectfully decline the engagement. This selectivity allows us to maintain the quality of matches we create and the relationships we build with both families and household staff.
The families we work with long-term appreciate this standard even though it means we won’t work with everyone who contacts us. They recognize that our selectivity protects them too by ensuring we only present candidates we genuinely believe will succeed in their households. The quality of our placements reflects the care we take in choosing which placements to pursue.
