To think employers shouldn’t hire on cultural fit

[Matleave22]

In my opinion, hiring on cultural fit is a really fast way to only hire ‘people like you’.

Surely a range of people with diverse outlooks and differing world views will make for a better and more powerful team! I think this ‘hiring on culture’ ideology inhibits diversity and inclusion.

What do you think? AIBU?

@ttcissoboring

Company culture - YABU

The persons culture (ie - their heritage) - YANBU

This.

It's extremely obvious when someone doesn't fit at my work. Slackers who are there for the money not the work have a very hard time.

‘Diversity and inclusion’ relates to unconscious bias which may hinder the hiring of appropriate people. It’s a social justice concept which has nothing to do with diverse outlooks and world views.

There’s no inherent benefit to having for example a racially/gender balanced team over an all white team. However general prejudice being lower in ‘diverse’ companies are a signal of good staff practices. It’s these that lead to the better performance. Not diversity itself. A different gender or skin colour doesn’t give you a valuable perspective on all jobs.
The ‘culture fit’ mentioned in interviews is work culture. Fast vs slow paced. Level of autonomy. Process orientation , etc.

I don't buy the 'we hire on job ability' line.

Because it would mean that women and people from racialised communities were less able to do senior jobs. given that they are under-represented in these positions.

They may well be less experienced because they haven't had the same opportunities, but that's different from ability and potential.

Having been to many interviews recently, I've realised that organisations hire who they want to, regardless of any objective measures.

I've done the highest scoring interview and not been offered the job for example.

@DerAlteMann (can’t quote) I work in tech and there are very specific elements, both technical and personal. For example:

• Some people throw in any code that works. Others test carefully and ensure it’s easy to read for others.
• Some people need to run a decision past everyone , other can take high levels of individual responsibility.

When discussing ‘why’ a candidate is marked down we refer to specifics but everything can come under an umbrella of ‘culture fit’ as opposed to , say, lack of technical skill , experience, or fit with company personal values (such as integrity, best effort etc etc).

We are all about hiring someone with the values that will fit and thrive in our team - we are open about our culture and values and who someone will needs to be to thrive and enjoying working in our team - no surprises really, slackers and big egos not wanted in our team either - it is not about what ethnic group, age etc someone is.

Yes totally what @ttcissoboring said.
Which do you mean?

20 years in recruitment here, across a number of different businesses, both in-house and agency
You absolutely should be hiring for people that ADD to your culture - the problem is "cultural fit" can often be code for "someone just like me. I like them because they're very similar to me, and have similar references and experiences."
If you have a robust, unbiased process that truly assesses technical skill, potential and the core pillars of how you expect people to behave, you will get it right. You need to have the internal policies to be able to do this.
It's the unchecked biases that cause the issues.

Which firms do this?

Accountancy firms only hire disadvantaged children now, which is of course right. But there is no normal recruitment alongside it.
My employment lawyer says white middle class boys are now being disadvantaged, they aren't being hired.

"Accountancy firms only hire disadvantaged children now."

Um, do you have anything to back this claim up at all?

@Oblomov21

Which firms do this?

Accountancy firms only hire disadvantaged children now, which is of course right. But there is no normal recruitment alongside it.
My employment lawyer says white middle class boys are now being disadvantaged, they aren't being hired.

What a deliberately inflammatory, and definitely untrue statement.

@KarlUrbansWife

20 years in recruitment here, across a number of different businesses, both in-house and agency You absolutely should be hiring for people that ADD to your culture - the problem is "cultural fit" can often be code for "someone just like me. I like them because they're very similar to me, and have similar references and experiences." If you have a robust, unbiased process that truly assesses technical skill, potential and the core pillars of how you expect people to behave, you will get it right. You need to have the internal policies to be able to do this. It's the unchecked biases that cause the issues.

That’s the key - ‘cultural fit’ that’s responsable can be defined. With specific values and behaviours.

A vague ‘cultural fit’ reason isn’t acceptable. If rejected on that basis the interviewers should be able to state exactly which cultural aspect is the issue.

Of course this can also be abused… unwilling to attend after work social events for example put down as ‘not being a team player’….

Of course it shouldn’t be done, the issue is people hire people they like and think they will get along with and often that’s people wirh similar personality types to their own.

I’m Corp and we focus on trying not to hire “people like us” but quite frankly we all are very similar in terms of personality. Different backgrounds, ethnicities etc but personality wise yup there is defintely a common thread.

Have you read Rebel Ideas @Matleave22 ? I highly recommend it.
Diversity of thought does lead to more successful organisations.

There's no right answer to this.

Companies often need people a little bit different, to keep it moving forward. But also if you think someone just won't fit in with the people there or think in a way that doesn't fit with yeh company at all, it's likely to go tits up.

I have been involved in an interview process where 'cultural fit' was given as a reason to not hire the only black candidate.

@Bluntness100

Of course it shouldn’t be done, the issue is people hire people they like and think they will get along with and often that’s people wirh similar personality types to their own.

I’m Corp and we focus on trying not to hire “people like us” but quite frankly we all are very similar in terms of personality. Different backgrounds, ethnicities etc but personality wise yup there is defintely a common thread.

That’s interesting- what sort of personality is that?

@Hoolihan

I have been involved in an interview process where 'cultural fit' was given as a reason to not hire the only black candidate.

That’s unacceptable- so it was literally only ‘cultural fit’ with no context?

Yep. I do. Check it out. All 25 firms signed up to it.
And they prioritise disadvantaged children with free school meals and a parent who didn't go to uni, for their work experience.

They only take disadvantaged children for their work experience. Only. It's their criteria.

Plus for apprenticeships. The same.
I rang pwc and KPMG to check I hadn't misunderstood.

I asked if they had this support programme, which is of course right, to support disadvantaged Children

But was it run . alongside a programme of recruiting any student from .... not disadvantaged families ? say a grammar school (which mine aren't) or from a family who aren't on free school meals. Who have a parent or both parents attending Uni.

They both said no.

I was told by other parents that I should just appreciate that my boys aren't on free school meals, and have parents who are interested. Which I had to agree with. So they are advantaged because I care.

But I couldn't grasp that the top 4 don't / only offer work experience to disadvantaged children.

Yes and no.

“Will this person compliment the team and enhance the ethos and culture of the organisation” is a question you should ask when hiring surely?

I do agree that it shouldn’t be a case of recruiting people “Just like me” and that bringing new perspective and experience and diversity is of course a great thing. But surely that person needs to align or gel with the organisation culture. Being at odds with the vibe you’re surrounded by for 40 hours a week isn’t a good thing is it? For anyone.

@KarlUrbansWife

20 years in recruitment here, across a number of different businesses, both in-house and agency You absolutely should be hiring for people that ADD to your culture - the problem is "cultural fit" can often be code for "someone just like me. I like them because they're very similar to me, and have similar references and experiences." If you have a robust, unbiased process that truly assesses technical skill, potential and the core pillars of how you expect people to behave, you will get it right. You need to have the internal policies to be able to do this. It's the unchecked biases that cause the issues.

Quite. So many bosses end up surrounded by people like them and then there’s no diversity of thought

@tractorandheadphones ?
"What a deliberately inflammatory, and definitely untrue statement."
What do you mean?

I think it depends on the industry and type of role. In my sector, just about every role is recruited on cultural fit. It doesn't mean everyone is the same. It means fitting with the company's values and expected behaviours. People aren't hired based on a point system like they are in so many roles people talk about on here. You provide a CV rather than filling in an application. Recruitment is based on experience and chemistry with the team.

There is no point in hiring someone who you know wouldn't fit in with the team or the company values. It saves training someone and them leaving straight away as they don't enjoy the work or don't like the culture

@Oblomov21

Yep. I do. Check it out. All 25 firms signed up to it. And they prioritise disadvantaged children with free school meals and a parent who didn't go to uni, for their work experience.

They only take disadvantaged children for their work experience. Only. It's their criteria.

Plus for apprenticeships. The same.
I rang pwc and KPMG to check I hadn't misunderstood.

I asked if they had this support programme, which is of course right, to support disadvantaged Children

But was it run . alongside a programme of recruiting any student from .... not disadvantaged families ? say a grammar school (which mine aren't) or from a family who aren't on free school meals. Who have a parent or both parents attending Uni.

They both said no.

I was told by other parents that I should just appreciate that my boys aren't on free school meals, and have parents who are interested. Which I had to agree with. So they are advantaged because I care.

But I couldn't grasp that the top 4 don't / only offer work experience to disadvantaged children.

I presume you’re referring to programs like the PwC Flying Start - which is restricted to a select few unis and pays for the degree. There are plenty of other apprenticeship and school leaver programmes open to everyone. Worried your boys won’t be up to the competition?

Well I wouldn't deliberately hire someone who I know everyone else in the team would hate - that would be foolish.

However that would be based on issues other than gender/race/sexual orientation/disability etc etc

As PP have said - if an interviewee is an arrogant knobhead with a great CV, they aren't going to get hired.