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?

I once had a similar thing at a college I worked at. It was between me and another candidate and they said come along and meet the team. So I did. They used an informal chat setting with potential colleagues to ask all the stuff they couldn’t ask in an interview like- are you in a relationship? With a man? Are you planning on getting married? Are you planning on having kids? Soon? What other places have you applied to? Do you know so and so? Etc. naively I took the job and experienced their horrible bullying culture when ( 4 years later) I went on maternity leave. Red flag in my experience!

I can see the benefit of this. I work in a small team. We have twice hired people who were a disaster (one caused a colleague to go off with long term stress, it was a mess, and there is a tribunal this year). There’s a part of our process that involves a test and the test is done in our open plan office. We once hired someone above another candidate based in the staff opinion of them (they were evenly matched in other scores). After all, it’s them who have to work with the candidate. We are a diverse team so it’s definitely not to exclude someone based on race/class etc.

If it's part of the job interview process then presumably some candidates would not be progressed ? If that is the case, where would the feedback for such a decision come from ? If it's the team itself, then is it a good or a bad thing. And if there is no mechanism for feedback from the team then what is the fucking point ?

That being said, the flipside of this is when a candidate is parachuted in by a management layer that ignores team dynamics. Which I have seen shut a department down.

One of my former CEOs was obsessed with the hiring process (they had written books about it and gave talks ...) some of their tropes were "people don't leave companies, people leave managers", and "hiring or promoting the wrong person destroys confidence" - the sort of cruft that is filling up LinkedIn these days.

Why do you think it's about racism or misogyny? Others here have made it abundantly clear that it's about attitude and behaviour and some shared values.

Why do you think that?

Why? Are you unable to behave professionally around people who look different to you?

But what you are describing is it being done badly. That's no different to an interview being conducted badly.

Ours have the same rules as interviews regarding asking about personal information. It is still part of the recruitment process.

I think it sounds a good idea. We’ve recently hired a lot of new people, and half of them refuse to put cameras on in meetings, ever, are always on mute, sometimes just don’t show up, take an age to come off mute and their tone when they do to answer a direct question is annoyed they’ve been called on. The other half are lovely.

i don’t expect everyone to have cameras on all the time, I certainly don’t, but there seems to be a new trend of recent graduates who have zero interest in making an effort with colleagues.

We had a face to face day recently and after a session had ended we were all chitchatting before the next one started. One new hire folded up his hoodie on the table, put headphones in, put his head down on the hoodie and closed his eyes.

If he’d done that I doubt he would have been given the job.

and before I get “ok boomer” comments, I’m 33. My team range from almost 60 to 23.

I've never heard it called that before but I think lots of job interviews include an informal "meet the team". E.g. when I worked in schools, it might be a chat while you were shown round the building, in a more corporate environment it might be having lunch with potential colleagues.

It wouldn't be part of the formal scoring, but colleagues would be asked their opinion before any final decision was made.

I had a chemistry check once as part of a 3-stage process for a job. Turned out the team really didn’t like me at all (they were a very middle class well spoken Home Counties lot). Bastards even nit-picked that I had messy hair and dirty shoes (FFS it was TORRENTIAL rain that day causing tide marks). I didn’t get the job despite the senior managers wanting to offer to me. I considered it a lucky escape even at the time when I was only 22.

I’d view it as a 2-way thing - if they don’t think you’ll fit in you sure as hell won’t want to work there. It’s a candidates market out there - you have a lot of power.

oh and everything everyone said upthread about diversity is spot on. In places that still operate a face-fit, you just won’t progress if you’re not their ‘type’ and there will probably be divisions, disenfranchised
and marginalised staff and bitching. I would avoid.

It wouldn't be part of the formal scoring, but colleagues would be asked their opinion before any final decision was made.

Yes, but what weight does that opinion carry ? (Which is the ultimate proxy for the business). Some business take notice. Others - well the decision has already been made.

I agree it wouldn't have huge weighting. It would prevent someone who'd scored really well but had terrible social skills getting appointed or it may be the difference between two close candidates.

Being a nerdy tech, I generally deal with non-tech managers who obsess about tech. Which is why I get dragged into interviews. However a 30 year secret is I don't really care about a candidates tech chops - certainly not as listed (and anyone who knows there is a correct answer and a Microsoft answer will get me). Especially as most cvs are a soup of TLAs intended to dazzle recruitment agencies anyway.

I tend to be more interested in how candidates thought. So my SOP was to find an obscure technical question or three that I didn't know the answer to, and see how the candidate would go about getting the answer. That's why one role I advised on I recommended a graduate over someone with 4 years experience. (Graduate got the job and is now a director, 17 years on).

Who cares what you know ? The real question is surely "Can you do this job ?". The two aren't always connected. Certainly not proportionally.

And I am still not a fucking people person. The word misanthrope was invented for me.

I remember going for a job once where all the candidates spent 2 days together in a Hotel, at the end of which we had a big slap up dinner. Once the wine was flowing, we were asked for our opinions on the "Life of Brian" film. 😕

@Hillrunning

I'm also autistic.

I'm in tech.

This is basically a popularity test which I would be shit at.

I wouldn't even bother applying if this was listed in the ad.

Why would it be a popularity contest?
It is a slightly less formal interview where rather than being assessed on skills you are assessed on behaviours required to integrate with the team. What that would look like would depend on the team and role.

Surely you know what behaviours make your current team members good or bad to work with? Why wouldn't you want the opportunity to see if potential colleagues at a new role have these too?

This is basically a popularity test which I would be shit at.

No, it's not a popularity test. If I was interviewing you for my very small company I would be considering how you'd fit in with the other people I employ. A diagnosis of ASD covers a huge range. You might fit in better with my team than someone very extravert and outspoken.

Pubs, or events where a majority of people are drinking alcohol, are very unfair to people who don't drink. I know people who don't drink for religious/cultural reasons and do not feel comfortable in the environment of a pub, even for a meal or soft drinks.

OP hasn’t said this will take place in a pub, or a restaurant, or said anything at all about the location.

This too-

Some very observant Muslims, recovering alcoholics for a start

What are you talking about? Nobody said it was in the pub!

What is the difference between "fitting in" and a popularity test?

We're adults. We should all be able to work together regardless if we have "chemistry".

This practice sounds like a massive liability risk

Agree. I don't understand why so many would have such an issue with it. It's a good final tick and I would certainly do it for a team member

OP has not but several other posters have described events that took place in those venues.

What is the difference between "fitting in" and a popularity test?

What do you think ?

Roger Daltrey once explained the dynamics of the Who that answers that question about his bandmates

"I get on well with them, But if I was to invite 3 friends out for a night, it wouldn't be them ...."