Andrea Hoffer, MS, MBA recently shared something that caught my attention: "A multi-unit owner once told me they found the "perfect" candidate because their resume was full of big-name brands." Then, using her DREAM Hire Framework™, she uncovered a hard truth: when asked for a specific example of solving conflict, the candidate had none.

That story is painfully familiar for anyone who has hired at scale. A polished resume and confident delivery can create the illusion of competence. But as Andrea put it, the problem was not the resume. It was the lack of "detective" work in the interview.

"A resume is a marketing brochure, not a performance guarantee."

I want to expand on Andrea’s point because it explains a huge amount of preventable turnover, especially in multi-unit operations where speed and consistency matter. If you want better hires, the goal is not to get better at reading resumes. It is to get better at finding evidence.

The hidden risk of hiring for logos

Big-name brands on a resume trigger a shortcut in our brains. We assume:

Their previous company must have vetted them.
They learned strong standards.
They performed at a high level.

Sometimes that is true. But brand names are still weak predictors of what you actually need: repeatable behaviors in your environment.

Someone can work at an iconic company and still:

Avoid conflict instead of resolving it
Struggle with pace, ambiguity, or messy real-world constraints
Depend on a strong system they no longer have
Sound great in generalities but fail in specifics

Andrea’s line is the one hiring teams should tattoo on the process:

"Don’t hire for where they’ve been. Hire for the behaviors they’ve proven."

The word "proven" is doing the heavy lifting. Proof is not a vibe. Proof is a story with details.

Resume claims vs. performance evidence

Most resumes are written like sales pages: action verbs, outcomes, and curated highlights. That is not dishonest. It is the point of a resume. But it means resumes are optimized for persuasion, not verification.

Here is the gap Andrea is pointing to:

Claim: "Strong communicator"
Evidence: A specific situation where they delivered a difficult message, how they did it, what changed, and what they learned
Claim: "Conflict resolution"
Evidence: The exact conflict, stakeholders, what they said and did, and a measurable or observable result
Claim: "Thrives in fast-paced environments"
Evidence: A concrete example of prioritizing under pressure, what tradeoffs they made, and what happened next

If a candidate cannot provide evidence when asked, it does not automatically mean they are bad. It means you do not yet have reliable data to justify the hire.

The detective mindset: what you are really listening for

When Andrea says you need to act like a detective, she is describing a simple shift: stop interviewing for impressions and start interviewing for proof.

A detective does not ask, "Are you honest?" They look for:

Timeline consistency
Specificity that is hard to fake
Accountability (owning their part)
Results and consequences
Reflection (what they would do differently)

In hiring, the detective mindset sounds like:

"Walk me through the moment you realized there was a problem."
"What did you do first? What did you do second?"
"What did you say, and how did they respond?"
"What was the result a week later? A month later?"
"If I asked your manager, what would they say you did well, and what would they critique?"

The more a candidate stays in vague language ("we," "always," "usually," "I just"), the less evidence you have.

A 30-minute upgrade you can run before your next interview

Andrea laid out a quick fix that any owner or hiring manager can implement fast. I would keep it as close to her steps as possible, because the simplicity is the advantage.

1) Pick one role you are hiring for

Not "shift lead" in general. Pick the actual role in your operation with the real constraints: schedule, volume, standards, customer expectations, and team maturity.

2) List three observable behaviors from your best performer

This step is underrated. Observable behaviors are not traits. "Positive attitude" is a trait. "Greets every customer within 10 seconds" is a behavior.

Examples of observable behaviors by role:

Assistant manager: "Runs pre-shift huddles with clear assignments and confirms understanding"
Store manager: "Coaches to a standard using one specific example and a next-step expectation"
Frontline team member: "De-escalates a frustrated customer without escalating to a supervisor"

If the behaviors are not observable, they cannot be consistently interviewed for.

3) Write one behavioral question starting with specific example

Andrea’s wording is the key:

"Could you share a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of a time you..."

Add one challenge you routinely face in that role. Make it real, not hypothetical.

Examples you can steal:

"Could you share a specific example of a time you had to address a teammate who was not following a process? What did you say, and what happened after?"
"Could you share a specific example of a time a customer was angry about a policy you could not change? How did you handle it, and what was the outcome?"
"Could you share a specific example of a time you were short-staffed and still had to hit service targets? How did you prioritize?"

4) If they cannot produce a story with a result, treat it as a red flag

This is the discipline most teams skip. They "like" the candidate and rationalize the missing evidence.

Andrea’s point is not to be harsh. It is to be accurate. If you need the behavior on day one, you should be able to verify that behavior existed at least once in the past.

Why reactive hiring creates turnover

Andrea also called out a common pattern: "Most business owners hire based on a gut feeling after a 15-minute chat." That is reactive hiring. It happens when the business is in pain (short-staffed, behind, exhausted), so speed overrides rigor.

Reactive hiring tends to create turnover because:

The interview rewards confidence, not competence
Expectations are not clearly defined as behaviors
The new hire is surprised by the real job
Managers spend weeks "hoping" performance improves
The team absorbs the cost through rework and morale hits

The better alternative is not a long, complex process. It is a consistent evidence-based process.

A simple scoring method to make the evidence usable

To operationalize the detective approach, I like a lightweight rubric for each key behavior:

0 = No example (cannot recall a specific situation)
1 = Vague example (few details, unclear actions, unclear result)
2 = Clear example (context, actions, result, some learning)
3 = Strong example (high ownership, measurable impact, thoughtful reflection)

Have interviewers score independently, then compare. This reduces the influence of "I just had a good feeling" and makes hiring conversations about data.

What to do when the candidate is junior

A fair concern: what if you are hiring entry-level and they do not have deep experience?

You can still require specificity. You just widen the acceptable sources of evidence:

School projects
Volunteer roles
Sports teams
Family responsibilities
Any job, even if unrelated

The standard is not "have managed a store." The standard is "can demonstrate the behavior in some context." Specificity still applies.

The question Andrea left us with

I will end where Andrea ended, because it is the right gut-check for any hiring decision:

"Are you hiring based on what they say, or what they’ve actually done?"

If your hiring process is built to collect stories with outcomes, you will make fewer regret hires, reduce turnover, and build teams that can execute without constant rescue.

This blog post expands on a viral LinkedIn post by Andrea Hoffer, MS, MBA, Franchise Talent Acquisition Consultant | Helping Multi-Unit Brands Scale with AI Hiring Systems & RPO Solutions | Recruitment Automation Architect | Creator of the DREAM Hire Framework™. View the original LinkedIn post →