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 wouldn't see that as any different from interviews where the candidate gets to meet the team for lunch in the work canteen so they can ask questions informally and the team can give very informal feedback that wouldn't influence the outcome - it is just someone with too much free time at work has put a twattish "chemistry check" name around it.

Adults should be able to get on with anybody at work.

Be polite, get on with job, fuck off home/offline

That's just reminded me of doing the rounds of Uni interviews, and getting a "chit" for lunch in the refectory ...

Well, you'd think. However if companies were bands (or vice versa) then you really need to have a minimal level of twatfriction.

People in the workplace often make awful, disgusting assumptions about ND people because of quite innocent things that make them seem "off". I'd go so far as to say it is the norm for ND people to face this at some point.

It takes time to get over that first impression, which is not available in a "chemistry check".

It's just one of the inappropriate considerations that can hide behind this. As long as people can think of something else to give as a reason they can vet people for all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the workplace. Sex, race, religion, politics, disability, ND, sex appeal, you name it.

The last job I had, I had an interview with the two bosses and then a chat and a coffee with the other two in the team. It was only after I started that they admitted that the informal chat was to see if the other members of the team felt I would fit in. Apparently my two predecessors were nightmares to work with and disrupted the whole vibe of the working atmosphere. This was in 2000.

I don't think it is anything particularly new, just wasn't given a poncy name like chemistry check.

You don't have to be popular, you just have to be able to get on with colleagues and work in an adult, reasonable manner. You don't have to go to the pub, you don't have to be friends. I described on page one of this thread what happened when a senior manager dropped a toxic, antisocial individual into what had been a calm, efficient department.

I was invited for a night at the pub with members of the team after an interview, the excuse being to see how I fitted in with them. It ended up being very useful for me because two of them got more drunk than they had perhaps intended.
One of them (someone who freely admitted that "I speak as I find") asked me if I was planning to have children soon. The second one let slip that my last two predecessors left because they couldn't get on with their line manager, and that neither of them had lasted longer than 6 months.
During the interview the topic of how I handled working with difficult people came up twice, and I couldn't help noticing that the line manager was being very unsubtle about looking down the cleavage of another member of the interviewing panel. As it was, I accepted a job at another conpany the next day so I withdrew from the final interview, but I think I had a lucky escape there!

“Fit” is important. Especially in highly collaborative roles.

You can try to pretend otherwise all you like, but it is important.

Staff in charge of recruitment need to consider the impact on existing staff. By not hiring individuals who are divisive and entirely unmanageable (I speak from bitter experience).

It's just one of the inappropriate considerations that can hide behind this. As long as people can think of something else to give as a reason they can vet people for all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the workplace. Sex, race, religion, politics, disability, ND, sex appeal, you name it

I agree 100% ConcordeOoter

*”Fit” is important. Especially in highly collaborative roles.

You can try to pretend otherwise all you like, but it is important.*

I couldn’t disagree more. It is a managers job to create a strong sense of team and community amongst a group of diverse individuals and those that want a certain ‘type’ of person are probably just not very good at getting the best out of people.

interviews are the place to determine whether people have the right strengths, values and experience to do the role. ‘Meeting the team’ selection methods leaves the process wide open to preferences and bias.

There speaks someone who has never worked with some truly batshit people…

Sounds awful and very liable for discrimination. With GDPR, any applicant can request to see the notes from their interview(s) so I’d be surprised how they’ll get around this. It’s ok if you’re noting ‘xxx didn’t have this skill’ etc based on JD, but no idea how you’d evidence someone not having the right ‘chemistry’

There speaks someone who has never worked with some truly batshit people…

Haha no, just someone who has a fuck ton of experience designing (fair) selection processes and a fuck ton of experience in managing teams and indeed managing managers.

‘truly batshit’ should not be left to the ‘meet the team’ stage to decide. If it is then it’s just subjectivity (there are probably people who have worked with you who think you are ‘truly batshit’…..)

I worked somewhere like this once. It actually worked well. The workplace was a lovely environment that was very diverse at a time when people may have expected it to be less so. Everyone got on so well. It was like a second family. Best place I ever worked in.

One persons batshit is another persons decent human being.

Well of course. And it's important for people to find the right environment for them so that they enjoy their working day.

@Jonei

That's partly what the interview is for. There's also glass door and word of mouth.

All of these terms; "chemistry", "fit" are deliberately vague bordering on the opaque.

A robust recruitment strategy needs to be transparent both so it actually works and, doesn't land you in a tribunal.

Being transparent and having a bit of integrity is something I would look for in a potential employer; this kind of nonsense would immediately fail that.

It's important that those in team working roles can work effectively together so I think it's a good thing.