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?

Are you sure you've not misunderstood this? We hire based on "fit", as in "fits in with the way we as company do things and hasn't worked in a completely different way during their career".

Whilst I agree in principle that diversity of view/insights can help, in reality a hardcore lefty wouldn't be a good fit in a team of Trump supporters for example.

@JesusIsAnyNameFree could not agree more.

Hire for values not cultural fit (eg company culture/ team culture). Otherwise the people who get in first dictate said culture and hire more like them.

Example: if a team starts with say tech bros and you hire for culture you get more tech bros. If you hire for values like transparency or collaboration or whatever, you will have a much better and more diverse team.

@C8H10N4O2

I don't work for KPMG but was so surprised I looked it up

This kind of scheme exists in all the big accounting/consulting firms. They are regularly misrepresented by people whining about "poor middle class boys being discriminated against".

Of course their existence is the reason there are so few white middle class men in the upper levels of the firms in question.

Sorry if I wasn't clear I meant surprised about the pp claim and certain it couldn't be true so looked it up to prove it wasn't true. I was hoping they'd misunderstood but the website was very clear so it looks more like wilful ignorance

Cultural fit doesn’t apply to the candidates ethnicity, race or background it’s about the company culture: values and priorities.

I work for a listed MNC. Everyone who joins goes through a detailed personality assessment because we understand that cultural fit is the number one driver for success in our organisation.

@Hoolihan

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

And when you queried that what was the response?

It's definitely true and research proven hat diverse workplaces are more creative and therefore productive.I'm all in favour of your statement, OP.

Also the fact that cultural fit is a word that has different meanings is not helpful.

@mangowithasqueezeoflime

Hire for values not cultural fit (eg company culture/ team culture). Otherwise the people who get in first dictate said culture and hire more like them.

Example: if a team starts with say tech bros and you hire for culture you get more tech bros. If you hire for values like transparency or collaboration or whatever, you will have a much better and more diverse team.

I don't understand your point - what are tech bros? Doesn't make any sense.

I think culture and values often mean the same thing or at the very least they get confused with each other. We value collaboration - as a team we collaborate, some people don't like to work that way. No way would we just hire for values, we have technical requirements that must also be met - it's not enough to fit the values/culture of the team, you have to be intellectually and technically able too!

Sorry if I wasn't clear I meant surprised about the pp claim and certain it couldn't be true so looked it up to prove it wasn't true. I was hoping they'd misunderstood but the website was very clear so it looks more like wilful ignorance

My comments were directed at our willful misleader - I could have been clearer!

I know these schemes well, I've been involved in sponsoring them in my own org. Funny how in the days when these 6th form and gap year internships went automatically to the private schools and DC of partners/MDs/friends people like Oblomov were not piping up all over to whinge about fairness.

I thought 'cultural fit' meant someone who would fit with the current work force.
Polite speak for ' not an asshole'

To often "do not hire based on culture" seems to be code for "only employ minorities". I work in research so people are only employed on ability, my field is around 60% men, but I do not think more women should be employed because they are women, employ the best people for the role, as for cultural fit, that would best be described as slightly odd, which I accept I am.

My husband works in a few sectors but a chunk of his work is with media (film and TV) and they seem to have an obsession with ignoring cultural fit, which largely means a lot of un or under qualified and inexperienced people employed on the basis of not being white or straight. Many of these people seem to lack the right cultural fit, from poor timekeeping, to attitude at work, work rate, arguing with the producers (who on film sets are in overall charge). Note that I am not saying that it is all the people who are not White and straight or are the issue, there are a lot of LGB people in media and there have been for years, but they earned their place on merit. The issue seems to be the fast tracking in of people to expand the "cultural outlook" which involves putting people in roles they are not good at for the sake of a box ticking exercise.

I think cultural fit can be important.

I work for a third sector organisation that has a very distinct ethos. All our clients are vulnerable in some way, most of them are in very challenging circumstances. The organisation is committed to to improving the lives of people in difficulties, to equality and diversity.

It would be really hard for someone who didn't share that commitment to do their job effectively and to be sensitive to the needs of clients and the challenges that they face. I have no issues whatsoever that they tend to employ people who have that "cultural fit".

And they regularly win awards, both for the services they provide and for being a great employer to work for.

[quote PegasusReturns]@Hoolihan

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

And when you queried that what was the response?[/quote]
I'm hugely ashamed to say that I didn't query it. I was in a junior position myself and the statement was made by the CEO. I am not proud of this and if it happened today I would most certainly speak up.

In my experience 'hired for cultural fit' means the person isn't qualified for the role but they're either really nice or really hot.

That led to quite the shitshow in my old company when it turns out that most people weren't actually fit for purpose.

Example: three senior men hired the hot 20 year old waitress from their night out and made her a product manager. Apparently they just knew she'd fit right in.

@OhWhatsTheDifference

In my experience 'hired for cultural fit' means the person isn't qualified for the role but they're either really nice or really hot.

That led to quite the shitshow in my old company when it turns out that most people weren't actually fit for purpose.

Example: three senior men hired the hot 20 year old waitress from their night out and made her a product manager. Apparently they just knew she'd fit right in.

See this is what I mean - the term cultural fit can sometimes be twisted to suit a creepy or discriminatory narrative and that's when it's not cool.

My employer has really diverse staff, I think when people talk about cultural fit, they just sort of mean whether you get along comfortably/share values/feel they fit with the team. Eg my team are very supportive & collaborative, if we had someone extremely individualistic & competitive who sort of, stood on others to climb up themselves, that wouldnt really be something we'd value, it would upset the balance and working environment.

I work in research so people are only employed on ability

How is this validated and measured? How are those measures assessed objectively?

In most workplaces "employed on ability" = "measured against objectives which just happen to be reflected in the dominant group".

I was taught that there are three tests to meet when interviewing for a role (on either side):

1. Can they do the job?
2. Will they do the job?
3. Are they a nutter?

The first is to do with showing they are capable, the second is to show they have the right mindset and drive, and the third is to show that they won't cause massive problems with existing staff.

To use a simile that I was given, the recruitment process is like casting a big fishing net out behind a traweler. You'll pick up lots of fish but a lot of them won't be the type you're looking for so you'll have to throw them back. Occasionally you might pick up a barrel of toxic waste or a landmine, and you'd better make sure you don't try to haul that aboard.

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

Was that the only reason given? I mean there are going to be plenty of fair processes where the only black candidate doesnt always get the job - maybe because they have less experience, or lack a particular qualification etc.in the same way sometimes the only woman candidate doesnt get the job etc.

If it was the only reason I can understand worrying that its being used to mask racism though.

Cultural fit is great if your hiring manager is good at their job, takes into consideration the staff already there, the culture of the company and the fact that the person is also the best 'fit' for the job

If the manager is a dick, it can mean 'jobs for the boys/girls' type scenario

Harrietschariot

Your post is excellent.

I work in research so people are only employed on ability

How is this validated and measured? How are those measures assessed objectively?

Usually it's an individual output measure.

Eg if person A manages 3 investment funds and generates total return 20%, and person B manages 3 investment funds of the same size and generates total return 18%, and neither are subject to any restrictions on investment type etc, person A has performed better than person B.

@C8H10N4O2

I work in research so people are only employed on ability

How is this validated and measured? How are those measures assessed objectively?

In most workplaces "employed on ability" = "measured against objectives which just happen to be reflected in the dominant group".

It depends on the role, but you do not get employed as a lead researcher with no past experience. You need a masters to get onto a PhD course, as part of your PhD you manage parts of the research for a senior researcher, professor or fellow. Some bachelors and masters will assist in the research to gain experience and you learn how to manage a team. There will be strict criteria that the project must follow, both to meet then criteria for valid research and also to meet funding (eg. If your results are not scientifically sound and following reliable methodology then you will not get the next round of funding).

People need to be good at what they do, if they make mistakes (rather than get unexpected results) then they will not last long, breaches of protocol, contamination of batches, breaches of confidentiality on commercial projects etc. As scientists we love crazy results, something new to understand, to discover, to research. We need to be able to replicate and verify them. If we cannot because someone has been lazy or sloppy that can hold us back weeks or even endanger the whole project.

For us ability is getting things right, being able to correctly analyse data, draw reliable conclusions which can be verified further research. Thinking outside the box is great, it is what we strive for, putting samples or data in the box is not great, it can ruin a whole project. On a cultural basis researchers from different countries work very well together because whilst we all think slightly differently due to cultural outlook, we still all understand the importance of and follow scientific method and proper procedures.