The Hiring Questions Canadian Employers Are Asking Right Now (Answered by Altis Co-founder Kathryn Tremblay)

Hiring in Canada today looks different than it did even a few years ago. Posting a role and reviewing resumés is no longer the full picture. Employers are navigating evolving hybrid work expectations, longer approval cycles, AI-supported interviews and increased competition for specialized talent across many industries.

At the same time, candidates are paying closer attention to the hiring experience itself. Clarity around work models, communication timelines, interview structure and onboarding expectations can directly influence whether candidates stay engaged in a process or ultimately accept an offer.

To help make sense of these changes, we’ve pulled together the hiring questions we hear most often from Canadian organizations today. The insights come from our recent Hiring Better webinar with Altis Co-founder Kathryn Tremblay, who has nearly four decades of experience working alongside employers across Canada.

From determining the right number of interview rounds to keeping candidates engaged throughout the process, Kathryn shares practical guidance based on what’s happening in real hiring environments today.

‍

1. What work models are employers offering most commonly in Canada right now?

Kathryn: “Something we’re seeing is that most employers are doing more return to office. And anything I talk about here is from a space of no judgment because we represent it all. Among our clients, about 10% are fully remote, about 25% are five days on-site and about 65% are hybrid with one to four days in-office, but the common ones are two to three.”

‍

2. What’s a common mistake employers make when describing hybrid or on-site work models in job postings?

Kathryn: “Right after COVID, we realized we were making a mistake ourselves. We were having a very easy time filling fully remote roles and fully on-site roles because they’re clear, but hybrid roles were creating problems at the offer stage.

Clients would say, ‘We’re flexible, we’ll do two, three or four days on-site.’ What they really meant was four days. But when we communicated it was a hybrid role, candidates interpreted that very differently. To many candidates, hybrid means two or three days working from home.

So the candidate would move through the entire process assuming one thing, and then at offer stage realize expectations were different. That’s where offers started falling apart.

We’ve become much more vigilant and straightforward. We go straight to the highest number of required in-office days in the job description, so there’s no mismatch.

The biggest takeaway for employers is to be very upfront. If it’s one day from home, say one day from home. If it’s four days on-site, say four days on-site. Clarity early prevents disappointment or delays later.”

‍

3. What should employers do when they’re unsure whether a role is scoped correctly before hiring?

Kathryn: “Before replacing someone, take the time to really understand what the role needs today, not what it looked like before. Organizations change, technology changes and teams evolve.

One of the best things employers can do is speak with the people surrounding the role and ask what’s working, what isn’t and what responsibilities may no longer need to sit with that position.

Sometimes even small adjustments completely change the profile of candidate you should be hiring.”

‍

4. How many interviews should employers realistically conduct before making a hiring decision?

Kathryn: “We normally recommend two to three interviews, with each conversation serving a different purpose.

One interview might focus on competency and technical ability, another on scenario-based discussions or problem solving and another on values or team alignment.

Hiring after one interview creates risk because you simply haven’t seen enough. But the opposite can also become a problem.

Once you move beyond three interviews, processes often slow down significantly. Decision-making stretches, scheduling becomes difficult and candidates can start to disengage or question how organized the organization really is.”

If you’re looking to refine how those conversations are structured, our guides on designing more effective interview questions offer a practical starting point.

‍

5. How are employers realistically detecting AI use in interviews and assessments?

Kathryn: “We’re seeing a broad range. We had a recent candidate where it was all virtual for a highly technical position, and they were using tools to aid them through the whole process. It took us till the very end to realize it was happening.  

They were set up technically so well that we couldn’t detect it in their answers, and they didn’t look like they were reading. They almost sounded too good to be true. Which can tell you a lot.

The ideal, when possible, would be to do something in person and have the technical interview be in person.

You can also look at proctoring tools. You can buy proctoring tools that look at the candidate’s eyes and whether they’re looking forward, and if there’s listening devices.”

‍

6. What are the pros and cons of personality testing, and how should employers choose the right assessment?

Kathryn: “Personality testing can be helpful, but only if it’s used for the right reason and in the right context.

Tools like DISC are interesting because they help you understand how people naturally operate. It doesn’t mean one profile is better than another. It simply gives insight into behaviours and working styles. That said, some of the free versions online aren’t completely valid, so employers need to be careful about relying too heavily on them.

If you’re looking for something more robust, assessments like Trimetrics or Hogan go much deeper, especially when you’re evaluating leadership capability or team dynamics. Those can be useful when a role has historically been challenging or when team fit is particularly important.

But I would caution employers against hiring based solely on a personality test. Can you really make a hiring decision from one assessment alone? Not really. The whole picture matters.  

There’s also a practical consideration. These assessments can become expensive very quickly. If you put multiple candidates through testing and don’t hire them, you may have spent several thousand dollars without improving your outcome.

What we’re seeing today across Canada is that relatively few employers rely heavily on personality testing. Some still use it selectively, but never as the deciding factor.”

‍

7. How do you distinguish between confidence and true competence in an interview?

Kathryn: “I would go into micro-scenarios. Ask them to bring you through a micro-scenario and what their participation was technically, emotionally, leadership, project, problems, critical issues, conflicts. Each one of those things might light something up, and the competence will come out through that. That’s also where more than one interview comes into play. Normally by the third interview, you can tell what’s confidence and what’s technical ability.”

‍

8. How do you avoid accidentally touching upon protected information when you’re trying to “get to know” candidates?

Kathryn: “Know your ESA and know your human rights. Every person in an HR or hiring manager role needs to know the Human Rights Act and respect protected grounds.  

That said, we’re human. Candidates sometimes volunteer personal context, and it’s okay to join the story, but they started the story, you didn’t. I would not ask anything that sounds like ‘do you have children?’ - absolutely not.  

And how you document matters. If they share something, document it as ‘the candidate shared with me…’ One reminder: do not ask someone if they’re Canadian. You can ask, ‘Are you legally entitled to work in Canada?’ but do not ask if they’re Canadian.”

‍

9. How do we keep strong candidates engaged during longer internal approval cycles?

Kathryn: “It’s all about communication. Right from the start, you tell the candidate, ‘In our company it takes approximately 56 days, here’s why.’  

You explain the journey, how long it takes and you tell them you’re very interested in their candidacy. You’re not telling them they got the job; you’re telling them you’re interested so that they also stay interested. Then at every step you’re communicating the next part in the process and how long is left, as long as you honor that duration.  

We’ve had clients take four months and by the time they get to the final offer, the candidate has lost interest and moved on. They need to know it’s going to take that long from the beginning, if possible.”

‍

10. Once an offer is accepted, what’s a risk employers may not see when start dates are far out?

Kathryn: “Anything more than four weeks between offer acceptance and start date increases the chance of a non-start significantly.

People are still interviewing. Counteroffers happen. Circumstances change.

If no one owns the relationship during that gap, silence creates space — and space creates risk. So, try and keep it to less than 4 weeks when you can.”

‍

11. How do you keep candidates engaged between offer signing and start date, without being intrusive?

Kathryn: “We send onboarding materials they can read on their own, we send a video they can watch and we assign someone who’s responsible to keep in touch.  

When you’re involved and you’re human, they don’t want to leave because they care. You can send equipment in advance, you can write a handwritten note, even an email checking in every so often — things like that show personal care.”

‍

12. When should employers reconsider their hiring strategy instead of continuing the same search?

Kathryn: “If you’re consistently seeing declined offers or having difficulty attracting the right candidates, it’s usually telling you something.

It may be compensation, scope, work model, expectations. Rather than continuing the same search repeatedly, pause and reassess what the market is telling you. Really look at where and why things are breaking down.  

That information is incredibly valuable if you use it.”

‍

13. What’s something employers underestimate when designing their hiring process?

Kathryn: “Employers sometimes underestimate how much candidates interpret the hiring process itself.

If scheduling is difficult, feedback is delayed or expectations change along the way, candidates start forming opinions about how decisions are made inside the organization.

The process becomes a preview of what working there might feel like.”

‍

Final thoughts

Successful hiring is increasingly defined by process clarity rather than speed alone.

Employers who clearly communicate work models, structure interviews intentionally, validate skills beyond surface-level conversations and stay connected with candidates throughout the hiring journey are seeing stronger acceptance rates and longer-term retention.

The organizations struggling most are rarely facing a talent shortage alone, they’re often facing misalignment between expectations and experience.

As hiring continues to evolve alongside technology, AI and changing workplace expectations, the most effective approach remains consistent: be transparent early, design hiring processes with intention and treat candidate engagement as an ongoing relationship rather than a final step.

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.