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?

The best team I worked in did "third interview drinks" with the team as the final recruitment stage. Everyone, no matter how junior, could give a view afterwards. And candidates often let their guard down in an informal environment. We ended up with a great, close and diverse team.

Thoes of you saying that aiming to hire candidates that fit in with the existing team will lead to no diversity - this sounds much more like a YOU problem. Are you really unable to build professional rapport with someone who isn't a carbon copy of you? If so, perhaps you are the ones who need to learn about diversity and inclusion.

Just like any stage if interviewing, if done incorrectly it can be bad but why do so many of you believe that you and your colleagues will do it incorrectly? The question being examined at such checks is simply, is there anything glaringly negative about this person's behaviour that could make working with them very difficult. In one's I have attended we ruled out, a woman who was exceptionally rude to our receptionist, a man who started telling 'the boys' about his last trip to Amsterdam's red light district (in an organisation linked to protecting women) and another man who went through each of his current colleagues telling us all their failings and gossip no matter how hard we tried to move the conversation on. We approved a man who cheered loudly when someone mentioned that they had just passed a training exam and asked encouraging follow up questions (suggested he was supportive), a woman who said she preferred to be a background person in big social situations so didn't say much but followed up with individuals as we walked back from lunch (shows she is both self aware and confident in voicing it) and someone who had no particular good or bad behaviours during the session.

In my generation, smart working class people with professional qualifications soon learned to jettison working class markers as fast as they could. I thought I might have overdone it when a client once volunteered that I looked like the sort of person who had grown up with a pony! We were so poor that we didn't have a telephone and had to use a callbox for any urgent calls. There was absolutely no pony or any possibility of one.

Sounds like a get out to ditch candidates that have done well on merit that they just don’t like tbh. Is there a history of misogyny/racism where you work??

I agree with PP who say it isn't necessarily an awful idea as long as you and your colleagues understand team fit doesn't mean "carbon copy of me". If you're not very diverse at the moment the biggest risk is candidates who don't fit your current profile will turn you down before you get a chance to make a decision!

That's anybody ND out the door immediately.

You're going to end up in court eventually

Being not slim, young and pretty, I would've failed that test instantly had they implemented it at one of my old jobs.

No I would not say that is becoming a standard in recruitment. If anything it sounds very much outdated and any company keeping up with best practice would be looking to eliminate this kind of bias in recruitment not encourage it.

This is not good news at all for people who are no good at chatting socially to people they don't know.

Yet that type of person might be an excellent worker, and even a good 'social' fit with the team once they have settled in.

Surely this has been a thing for years. After final interview they take you round the workplace and introduce you to your potential colleagues. You then decide if the company / colleagues are a good fit for you.

We do this. It is to weed out the nutters or the ones that show an attitude problem. The times we have made bad hires is when the choice has been made by people outside the team.

We have increased our diversity in most teams as most people enjoy dealing with different people and don't want a carbon copy of themselves.

People spend a lot of time with their colleagues and it matters that they get on.

It also helps develop the existing team and includes them in the process if they are trusted to meet potential new colleagues and give their view. It also means that if we get it wrong, it is partly on them so there is no blaming someone else.

This is true, but also many jobs also involve a ‘front of house’ role, building a rapport with clients or people you don’t know socially. So in many ways this could be a role play for the job. I agree not relevant for other jobs and difficult for introverts.

I have been in workforce for thirty years, multinational corporate type companies and I have literally never heard of that ever. It isn’t what OP describes either.

I have noticed in the last few years that some organisations increasingly included what they referred to as "cultural fit" interviews before offer stage.

In one company that did it - everyone (without fail) was a graduate, mostly Russell Group and a higher proportion were also Oxbridge. With that said, they didn't need a cultural fit interview to determine educational background.

One charity had a client/service user on their panel and another had one of the people that the successful candidate would actually line manage.

In previously times, the same effect might have been achieved by asking the person who greeted the candidates or showed them to the interview room what they thought.
For one job that I got when I was just starting out, they deliberately had a relatively senior member of staff (she just introduced herself by name not job title) do the meet and greet and escorting the candidates to another building for the interview.

I have too and this has been done almost everywhere I have worked

I think it would depend on what it involved, and if it was a two way thing. I know I would never have accepted one of my previous jobs if I’d known what my colleagues were like!!

My organisation has started doing this for senior jobs only and it is making a signifiant difference.

Instead of Billy Big Balls coming in and throwing his weight around trying to change everything tomorrow, the incoming management are valuing what there is and working out how to build on it while brining people along.

Interestingly the management team is becoming much more diverse as a result.

I think this can be either a good or a bad thing, depending on how it’s implemented.

In my industry it is very common for candidates to one on one meet with some members of the team, hear about their projects and chat on an informal basis. This of benefit to the candidates as it gives the candidate a chance to meet some of the people they will be working with and ask questions that they may not feel able to ask in the main interview. And while the boss normally does ask for feedback it is only taken in consideration to weed out any arseholes.

Yeah, I don't know about this, I have seen people exhibit all sorts of nasty little behaviours because of their "personal dislikes" that are inappropriate to the workplace. Ideally you can shut it down or deprive it of oxygen, the employee gets the message and it doesn't blossom into a problem. Sometimes it becomes clear after misconduct has occurred.

This process sounds nice, but seems like a great way to give people the power to act out their unprofessional prejudices in secret, with the company able to wash their hands of it.

Back in the day (when we weren't broke) we always took interview candidate's for lunch so the team could suss them out. It is a very useful tool.

Yes, I think that you are indeed thinking too much into this. Why do you think that your colleagues will give bad feedback on any candidate who is not a similar background/personality type to them? Do you not think that they are capable of gelling with someone who has a different background, or they have not also read all the studies about needing a balance of work styles for a team to work effectively? Or, worse, do you think they are racist/misogynistic or homophobic? If you see yourself as the only one who can be trusted to see the bigger diversity picture, why do you think your views will not be listened to?

Reading between the lines, it does sound as if you feel that teams have to be forced by managers/recruiters to take diverse candidates in order to create a diverse workforce, and that you don’t think this will happen if they are given any day in the matter.

On the other hand, surely you must know how miserable it is to work in a team where either you or the others are the wrong personality fit? And this includes a team made up entirely of battling alpha males or meek geeks.

The only thing that I would object to is the labelling it as a “chemistry” check, because, to me, “chemistry” is a sexual thing.

I mean, isn’t this the exact opposite of what you are afraid of? A candidate who might initially seem too different could be someone that others really warm to given the chance to talk in a more relaxed environment. How often have you heard people say things along the lines of “I thought that X was a bit weird at first, but once I got to know her we really got on”. Obviously this does depend on the “chemistry fit” interaction being long enough to allow that progression to happen.

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.

If they want to keep it to Oxbridge grads they can do that just by selecting CVs. If you've made it past that, surely you can see they are being more open to diversity than you think.

Why? Are you saying that all ND people would hate this or that all NT people can't get on with ND people? Both would be wildly incorrect.

I'm autistic and have participated in chemistry meetings as both a candidate and colleague. I'm my case as a candidate it was a perfect opportunity for me to get an idea of if I could cope with spending 40 hours a week with these people before making a commitment.

So many posters don't seem to understand what these sessions are for, they aren't to work out if you are going to end up best mates, they are to test professional compatibility. Just like interviews they can be done very well if the desire and framework is there.

I’m a teacher and when we are interviewing we always have a Dept lunch so people can meet the candidate. This is an important part of the process as we spend a lot of time in a small office together and chemistry matters.