Having a 'chemistry check' with future colleagues as part of the job interview process - AIBU?

[5678ugh]

My employer has recently started incorporating a 'chemistry check' as part of the final stages of the interview process. This is for the entry-level graduate positions. It's a hybrid role where we work in teams, so it is important to be someone who can generally get along well with others and work as a team.

However, I really don't like the idea, but I'm not sure if I'm thinking too much into it. The company is very middle-class full of Oxbridge graduates (not me) and to me this 'chemistry check' almost seems designed to keep it that way, it doesn't feel very inclusive.

AIBU or is this becoming a standard part of recruitment now?

Well, I suppose no one could accuse them of unconscious bias, it’s conscious bias all the way by the sound of it!

Sounds horrible

Sounds awful. Surely they could get a rough idea from the interview anyway.

Do they have any eye on diversity at all?

What kind of check is it? It used to be taking graduates out for a drink and seeing which would make it through the evening without making an idiot of themselves.

Some bad ideas just refuse to die.

Chemistry check, dear lord! Employers take themselves far too seriously these days.

This is called "team fit" and another way to discriminate against people who don't look and sound like them.

Funny thing is diverse teams actually produce better work and higher profits for a company.

I would make a big fuss and tell your bosses that they are likely to be sued under the Equality Act if they go ahead with this bs.

Sounds like the days of hiring only by word of mouth in another guise. Discriminatory.

I'm sure you can contact the EHRC to make a complaint, or use your company whistleblowing policy to begin with.

I agree that it’s not very inclusive. But in my sector we use the ‘gold standard’ everything-blind competency-based recruitment where there is no test of team fit before you’ve already hired someone and sometimes that does create really shit situations on all sides. It would be nice to be able to recruit in a way that was inclusive while recognising culture and chemistry as important.

Oh and it isn't a standard part of recruitment.

Standard part of recruitment is getting your more diverse hires involved in recruitment as it is known people tend to recruit people like them.

The Oxbridge mold, from what I know is where you want to learn and fit in, but not be too set with a one track mind.

That sounds horrible; and not a standard part of recruitment.

It would be nice to be able to recruit in a way that was inclusive while recognising culture and chemistry as important.

Nice, perhaps. Possible, no.

Research shows this can actually be a good thing BUT only to sell the team to the candidate, not the other way around, so should be after all formal assessments. It can help people start to feel socialised into the organisation so they are more willing to accept an offer. It definitely shouldn't be used before assessments or feeding into them, as that will increasing all biases on gender, race, social class, disability, neurodiversity etc.

God, I'm, so glad I escaped the office!

Despite all the talk of inclusivity and being ethical, most professional environments are much more white and middle class than for example the construction/trade industry where I now work.

We have 4 part interviews. 2 test technical skills, 1 is business fit and 1 is team fit. We have had a huge amount of training on diversity, inclusion and bias.

For us business fit doesn't mean "Are you like us". It's more like there are a broad set of soft skills we look for as a business and it's assessing that. Are you highly motivated, friendly, good problem solver etc.

Team fit takes into account the personalities and interests etc of the team the person is going into. Building a highly effective team is a bit of an artform. Thinking about the team I work in we are a relatively diverse set of people from different backgrounds, ethnicities, ages etc. But there are a few clear themes and values that are shared between us both in professional and personal matters. This helps us to work together well whilst still bringing a diverse set of perspectives to the table.

If your 'chemistry check' is like our team fit then I'd see no issues with it if you all need to work and collaborate closely.

Makes sense, it's important the team all gets along. I've met the team as part of the process in many organisations. It will be valuable for you as well as you might also not like the team. I think all companies should do this

I had to go through this as part of a job application once about 15 years ago. It was absolutely awful. I wasn't offered the job but to be honest I was glad as I hadn't clicked at all with the people I met, who would have been my peers, not bosses. They really put me off working there and had I been offered the job I probably would have turned it down.

I remember thinking it was really weird at the time. I was a newly qualified accountant applying for finance and internal audit jobs. This one was at MTV so I just put it down to the fact that it was a trendy media company.

I wouldn't do it as a recruiter, skills are far more important than fit. Diversity of thought is more welcomed in the workplace now than it was 15 years ago I think.

I would actually like something like this as a prospective employee. There’s been times where I’ve started a new job, where everything sounded great at interview but I’ve realised quite quickly after starting that the team/culture is not for me. It’s one of the reasons I’m ‘stuck’ in a job I hate/need more money. I’m on the same page as the rest of the team and don’t want to risk the opposite again.

I’ve always thought it would be great to have a trial week before officially starting, where you can go back to your old job if the new one is not for you, but I realise that would be a logistical nightmare at the very least!

It’s Just a dopey term for fitting in.

Not new. Quite old actually, haven’t they heard of getting some diversity in the building? You might want to
suggest it to HR.

That’s a terrible way to build a strong team with diversity of experience and thought. You are not wrong.

I would lump this with the while ‘they must fit in with the team’s personalities’ nonsense. Just another way of saying “We want to employ people just like us”. A real win for anti-diversity

Thissss

They need to look up the concept of group think which is when the views and values of a group can be too similar which leads to a lack of critical thinking and poor decision making

I was driven out of my last office-based job (years ago) when an extraordinarily anti-social, manipulative, narcissistic individual was appointed to my team by my manager. He had good skills but refused to be managed and was unpleasant to colleagues. Difficult to pin him down, but he'd lie and do everything he could to be difficult and uncooperative. It was intentional and malicious. Two members of my team left within six months of his arrival. They were angry with me that I couldn't get him fired or moved on. Sickness rates went up, productivity declined and the atmosphere in the office soured. HR were aware of the situation and agreed that his behaviour was bordering bullying and abusive but like my manager kept insisting that I find a way to make it work because he was good at what he did. It got to the stage where I couldn't bear to be anywhere near him and left to set up my own business.

I currently employ three people. They're all good at what they do and we work well together. When I recruit I'm concerned that people have the skills and qualifications I need — but above all that comes the question about whether they'll be a good fit with my team. Because if I make a bad choice on that front I put all our livelihoods and contentment in jeopardy.

I was going to write something very similar.
It sounds like a positive thing to me with the right training of those assessing

City law firms used to do this for post-qualification roles but after they'd offered you the job. So it was:

• interviews 1/2/3
• offer
• out with immediate team, usually with no bosses there
• accept (or not)

Doing this led to me changing my mind about which firm to move to as one team were really supportive of each other, commented on some downsides of the firm but were generally positive whilst the other group were constantly bitching and sniping about others in the team and made it sound like a horrible environment