How to Spot Potential Hiring Risks Before a Candidate Starts

The hiring process has always required a degree of trust.

But in today’s market, it has become significantly easier to present well on paper. AI tools can help candidates polish resumés, prepare interview answers, improve writing, and strengthen online profiles in ways that weren’t possible even a few years ago. That makes it more important for hiring teams to understand how someone actually thinks, communicates, and operates beyond the surface level.

That doesn’t mean employers should become overly skeptical. But it does mean thoughtful validation matters more than ever.

The strongest hiring decisions rarely come from looking for “perfect” candidates. They come from knowing when a conversation needs to go deeper, when more context is needed, and when a hiring team should pause before moving forward.
‍

Hiring risk isn’t always obvious

Part of why this matters is what happens when validation gets skipped. According to a 2024 survey of Canadian hiring decision-makers by Express Employment Professionals, replacing a worker costs an average of $30,674 once you factor in rehiring and lost productivity. Nearly 4 in 10 Canadian companies planning to hire in 2025 said turnover replacement is one of the main reasons they’re hiring at all. That’s a lot of resources going toward fixing decisions that, in many cases, could have been caught before an offer was made.

Rarely does a concern reveal itself all at once. More often, it’s small inconsistencies like details that shift between conversations, job titles that don’t quite fit the responsibilities being discussed, or references that avoid specifics.

None of the signals below is an automatic dealbreaker on its own. A career gap, a nervous answer, or a brief tenure can all have perfectly reasonable explanations. What matters is whether a pattern develops. When the same concern shows up in more than one place, that’s when it’s worth slowing down.
‍

1. Inconsistencies in career storytelling

Careers aren’t linear anymore, and no one should expect them to be. Job changes, pivots, and gaps are common and rarely tell the whole story on their own.

What’s worth paying attention to is whether the story holds together. Strong candidates can usually walk through their career progression with clarity, even when the path has taken a few turns. When timelines shift between conversations, responsibilities stay consistently vague, or a candidate struggles to explain why they left a role they were supposedly thriving in, that’s where a follow-up question or two can tell you a lot.

‍Worth a closer look:

A candidate says:

“I just felt like it was time for a change.”

But struggles to explain:

• what they were looking for
• why they left
• what they learned
• what they accomplished in the role

Another example:

Their LinkedIn says, “Senior Project Lead,” but during the interview, they describe primarily administrative coordination work.

What confidence looks like:

A candidate says:

“I originally joined to help stabilize the team during a busy period, but after two years I realized I was looking for more strategic work and stakeholder exposure.”

The answer feels:

• clear
• reflective
• consistent
• grounded in real examples

A clear career story doesn’t need to be perfectly polished. It just needs enough detail to show how the candidate thinks about their choices and experience.
‍

2. Skills that don’t hold up under deeper conversation

AI tools have changed how candidates prepare for the hiring process. Resumés are more polished, interview answers are more rehearsed, and technical language is easier to replicate convincingly.

That doesn’t mean candidates are being dishonest. But it does mean hiring teams often need to go beyond surface-level conversations to understand where someone’s experience is genuinely hands-on versus where they may be speaking more generally.

Increasingly, employers are adding role-specific validation into the process through portfolio reviews, live scenario discussions, technical exercises, case studies, or skills assessments completed in real time.

Worth a closer look:

A resumé says:

“Led enterprise-wide transformation initiatives.”

But when asked what that involved, the answer is vague:

“I mostly helped support the team with various deliverables.”

Or the candidate uses a lot of technical buzzwords but struggles to explain how they personally contributed to the project.

What confidence looks like:

A candidate can clearly explain:

• the problem they were solving
• their specific role  
• challenges they encountered
• decisions they made
• measurable outcomes

For example:

“We were struggling with delayed reporting across departments, so I helped redesign the workflow and automated two approval steps, which reduced turnaround time by about 30%.”

Depth usually becomes clearer through follow-up questions and real-world examples, not through the resumé alone.

‍

3. Communication and accountability signals

A strong interview performance matters, but it’s not the only data point. Some of the clearest signals about how someone operates show up outside the formal conversation, in how they handle scheduling, whether they follow through on small commitments, and how they talk about challenges from previous roles.

Accountability is one of the harder things to screen for, but it’s one of the most important. Candidates who can speak honestly about where things didn’t go well and take some ownership in how they tell that story tend to be far easier to manage and develop than those who consistently frame every difficulty as someone else’s problem.

Worth a closer look:

A candidate consistently blames leadership, coworkers, clients, or “toxic environments” for every career challenge without showing any ownership.

Another example:
Repeated missed follow-ups, delayed responses, or avoiding difficult questions.

What confidence looks like:

A candidate can speak honestly and professionally about challenges:

“There were definitely things I would have handled differently looking back.”

Or:

“The environment wasn’t the right long-term fit for me, but I learned a lot from the experience.”

Self-awareness and accountability are often much stronger indicators than polished interview answers.

‍

4. Motivation and long-term interest

Whether someone can do the job is only part of the question. Whether they actually want this job and can articulate why matters just as much for long-term fit and retention.

It’s worth noting that in a tough market, some candidates are applying broadly and that’s understandable. But when someone can’t speak to what drew them to your organization specifically, or what kind of environment they do their best work in, the conversation usually needs to go a little further before you have what you need.

Worth a closer look:

A candidate:

• has minimal knowledge of the company or the role beyond the job posting
• can’t articulate what they’re hoping to build or where they want to grow
• brings up compensation early in the conversation, or it’s the primary or only driver

For example:

“Honestly, I didn’t have time to read about the company beforehand.”

That may not automatically disqualify someone, especially in a difficult market. But it usually means the conversation needs to go deeper.

What confidence looks like:

A candidate can clearly articulate:

• what interests them about the role
• what type of environment they work best in
• what they’re hoping to build next
• why the opportunity feels relevant to them  

For example:

“I’ve realized I really enjoy fast-paced environments where I can work closely with both operations and leadership teams, which is what initially drew me to this opportunity.”

Motivation often becomes one of the biggest indicators of long-term success and retention.

‍

5. Reference checks that add real context

Reference checks are still one of the most useful validation tools available, when they’re done well. The difference between a productive reference conversation and a scripted one usually comes down to whether you’re asking open-ended questions and giving the person room to talk.

It’s also important to verify that references are legitimate and directly connected to the organization where the candidate worked. In some cases, employers are now taking additional steps to confirm company affiliation, reporting relationships, or professional contact details before relying on the conversation itself.

Not every reference process happens live. Many organizations now use structured e-reference platforms, particularly for high-volume hiring. Even in those environments, specificity and consistency still matter.

Worth a closer look:

References remain overly general:

“They were great.”
“No issues.”
“Very reliable.”

But don’t provide specific examples, context, or insight into how the person worked.

Another example:
A reference sounds hesitant or struggles to validate key responsibilities the candidate described.

What confidence looks like:

References provide:

• thoughtful examples
• balanced feedback
• context around strengths and growth areas
• clear insight into how the person worked day to day

For example:

“What really stood out was how calm they stayed during high-pressure situations. The team trusted them because they communicated proactively instead of waiting until problems escalated.”

Often, the detail and natural storytelling in the answer is what tells you the most.

‍

6. Compliance and credential validation

For roles in regulated environments, the federal government, healthcare, finance, or positions requiring specific credentials, verification is part of the process, not an afterthought.

Most candidates who are well-prepared and transparent make this straightforward. The ones who aren’t tend to signal it early, through hesitation, inconsistency, or an inability to provide documentation they should reasonably have on hand.  

Worth a closer look:

1. unclear or shifting information around work authorization or certifications

2. credentials listed on the resumé that can’t be independently verified

3. hesitation or avoidance when documentation is requested

What confidence looks like:

Candidates are:

• transparent
• organized
• proactive
• comfortable providing documentation or verification details

Strong compliance validation protects employers, teams, clients, candidate experience, and organizational reputation.

Especially in today’s hiring environment, thoughtful validation is part of building trust.

‍

Consider meeting candidates in person when possible

Remote hiring has created a lot of flexibility and access to talent, and in many cases, it’s become a necessary part of the process. But when possible, having at least one interview in person, whether it’s a first meeting or a final-stage conversation, can provide additional context that’s difficult to fully capture virtually. For leadership, client-facing, or highly collaborative roles, in-person interactions can be especially valuable.

We know this isn’t always realistic for remote teams or geographically dispersed hiring processes. But when it’s feasible, even one in-person interaction can help employers make more informed and confident hiring decisions.

‍

Candidate verification creates better hiring decisions

Reducing hiring risk isn’t about adding more steps or narrowing the field based on surface-level signals. It’s about building a clearer picture of the person behind the resumé, how they communicate, how they account for their decisions, and whether they’re genuinely interested in the work in front of them.

When you take the time to validate the right things, you make decisions with more confidence, have more productive conversations throughout the process, and set up both the hire and your team for a stronger start.

If your team is thinking through how to strengthen candidate validation, reference checks, or overall hiring confidence, we’d be happy to connect.  

In a market increasingly shaped by automation and AI, we believe pairing technology with real conversations, human-led assessment, and thoughtful hiring practices continues to be one of the most valuable approaches to hiring well.

Click here to get started on your next hire.

Altis is a Canadian-owned staffing firm supporting organizations across the private and public sectors. We focus on relationship-driven recruitment, clear process and consistent delivery, helping employers hire with confidence and professionals build meaningful careers.

‍

Frequently Asked Questions

Do career gaps or frequent job changes automatically make someone high risk?

Not at all. Careers are far less linear than they used to be. What matters most is whether the candidate can clearly and consistently explain their transitions, growth, and decision-making.

How can employers better validate soft skills during the hiring process?

Soft skills are usually validated through deeper conversations, reference checks, situational questions, communication patterns, and how candidates respond throughout the hiring process.

What should employers pay attention to during interviews beyond technical skills?

Communication, professionalism, ownership, adaptability, follow-through, responsiveness, and self-awareness are often just as important as technical capability.

How can employers reduce hiring risk without making the process overly complicated?

Structured interviews, thoughtful reference checks, role-specific validation, and clear communication throughout the process can all help create stronger hiring decisions without adding unnecessary complexity.

Should validation differ depending on the role?

Absolutely. Validation for a fast-moving contract administrative role may look very different than validation for an executive leadership, federal government, or highly technical position.

How can employers spot hiring risks without being unfair to candidates?

Employers can reduce bias by using a consistent process for every candidate, asking role-related follow-up questions, and looking for patterns rather than making decisions based on one answer or one concern. A career gap, nervous interview, or non-traditional path should not automatically be treated as a risk. The goal is to understand the full picture before making a decision.

What are the best follow-up questions to validate a candidate’s experience?

Strong follow-up questions ask candidates to explain what they personally did, what problem they were solving, who they worked with, what decisions they made, and what changed as a result. For example: “Can you walk me through your role in that project?” or “What would your manager say your biggest contribution was?”

How late in the hiring process should reference checks happen?

Reference checks are usually most useful once a candidate is being seriously considered, but before a final decision is made. At that stage, employers have enough context to ask specific questions and use the conversation to validate working style, strengths, growth areas, and past responsibilities.