
What Companies Mean by Culture Fit - Harj
https://triplebyte.com/blog/what-companies-mean-by-culture-fit
======
mikeleeorg
I once fell into the position of having to hire for a fast-growing new team at
a large corporation. We didn't have a manager yet, so our department's VP
trusted me to make hiring decisions.

I made the first 20-ish hires, then helped out with 20 more. When we
eventually got a director and other managers who were peers to me, I held the
informal distinction of being able to make good hiring calls. Many of my hires
rose quickly in the company, earned strong performance reviews, and even won
awards at the company.

Eventually, I become a middle manager and had to teach managers I supervised
how to hire in a similar fashion. Relying on me to make a final call wasn't
scalable.

And that's when trouble began.

A few bad hires leaked in. For the first time, our group experienced
attrition. So I set about to try to systemize my recruiting process such that
it was repeatable by others.

That's when I had to codify our team "culture", which was something I used to
help with my hiring decisions. There were times when I made a call to hire a
candidate who seemed too junior for a role, because I felt there was a strong
"culture fit."

Of course, what I realized was, I was simply assessing for typical soft
skills, as well as personality traits such as tenacity, initiative, quick
study, etc.

In other words, there was no magic. I didn't have some special gift for
hiring. It was just a simple unspoken template in my head. And it wasn't
exactly "culture" either, as much as it was a set of personality traits that
every company looks for.

I suppose what I came up with was basically a "structured culture fit
screening assessment", to borrow the article's parlance. If you don't have
something like this, I'd highly encourage that you look into it. Not only can
it help minimize bias, but it can also give you a repeatable process for all
of your company's hiring managers.

------
rmason
My experience about 'culture fit' was that it was a code word for ageism.
Sometimes they'd be even more direct if I pushed back. This wasn't at the end
of a 45 minute interview, it was in the first five minutes after I'd already
passed the technical review. Might not be true in every instance, but I
absolutely cringe when I hear that phrase.

~~~
some_account
We may not like it but yes, age matters for culture fit. I prefer people
saying so instead of giving me bullshit reasons.

~~~
lovich
Might as well say "we may not like it, but yes, race matters for culture fit".
Both are highly illegal and pretty unethical.

~~~
chosenbreed
>...Both are highly illegal and pretty unethical

Agreed. But should they? I mean if I start a company with no recourse to
public funds why should I obliged to employ someone I wouldn't want to work
with? I understand why it is illegal. I think the ethics are debatable too.
Most importantly, I think both are routinely violated under some guise such as
'culture fit', etc.

~~~
ivraatiems
> I mean if I start a company with no recourse to public funds why should I
> obliged to employ someone I wouldn't want to work with?

Because otherwise certain classes of people will never be able to get certain
classes of job, despite being qualified, because the people who hold those
jobs are all members of another class who doesn't want to work with them.

For example, at various times both women and African Americans couldn't become
doctors. There is no evidence that women or African Americans are worse at
being doctors than men or white people, but the people who _were_ doctors
(mostly men and mostly white) at those times didn't want to work with them,
and culture suggested they were not capable of performing that profession.

Preventing discrimination against protected classes is a balancing act -
balancing the infringement on the liberties of a group that systemic
discrimination brings vs infringement on the liberties of an individual or
single entity by saying they cannot make choices based on certain criteria.
The protected classes that exist now (such as gender and race) exist because
far more harm is done to far more people when they don't exist, even factoring
in the fact that certain people will lose the ability to make certain choices
based on all the criteria they'd like to.

------
kgilpin
I'm in agreement with other commenters here that "culture fit" usually feels
like a euphemism for something else. I think what it's really about is
explained here in the article:

"A single toxic employee who is a bad fit for the existing culture can tank
the morale and productivity of an entire team. "

So, is there really more to "culture fit" than the No Asshole Rule (1)? If
not, can we start calling it what it is: "asshole rejection screening". Then
maybe we can use the word "culture fit" less (maybe even "culture" less),
because requiring new employees to "fit a culture" is pretty lacking in
concrete justification.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No_Asshole_Rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No_Asshole_Rule)

~~~
some_account
50 year old programmer in the middle of an open office with 25 year olds
bouncing balls around, playing loud music - bad culture fit.

Foreign middle aged man who can't speak the language very good in an
environment where native language is important - not a good culture fit.

Female 25 year old in a group of 50 year old men who mostly wants to relax at
work and are a bit awkward around young women - bad culture fit.

Very outspoken social person who enjoys partying in the middle of senior bank
personalities who are extremely detail oriented and introverted - bad culture
fit.

Just saying there is a lot of bad culture fits. It can be age, gender, race,
personality and even appearance. Bad culture fit is everywhere. It's just not
something we talk about very openly because it's not socially accepted. So we
hide it under other reasons.

~~~
zoomablemind
Shouldn't then the job descriptions just mention that so it's obvious for the
applicant beforehand?

~~~
1337biz
That's actually a good point. If job discriptions had a short description of
the team / company culture, it would weed out many non fitting candidates.

------
dbt00
I found the Uber comments interesting. As someone on the other side of the
table from Uber recruiting, I always figured a huge part of their hiring
problem is that it was obvious from the early stages that Uber was run by and
populated by a huge percentage of assholes, and people who had the sensitivity
to understand that and the desire and choices available to avoid doing so
would. Thus, the asshole primacy was maintained.

~~~
mattnewton
Agreed- I had a phone screen from Uber that turned me off from the company
single handedly several years ago.

------
SonnyWortzik
We joke a lot about that after I was hired as a middle aged coder...

 _during interview_

Boss: "so do you think you can fit in this culture?"

Me: "You mean, do I wear skinny jeans and drink kale smoothies? Probably not,
but if you want your work done, does culture fit matter when you have a mile
long back log?"

Boss: "good point, so... How does your schedule look for next week?"

it was all history from there.

~~~
curun1r
Over time, I've realize that this view of work/team dynamics is overly
unsophisticated. People are all really unique and viewing them as simply work-
accomplishing units misses a ton of the nuance in creating a successful team.

On one team I worked in, we hired an older coder with bad knees and a couple
of kids at home. Everyone in the team got along with him and generally liked
him and he got his work done without too much fuss. But it was obvious that he
didn't fit in with everyone else. We'd all hang out with each other socially
(bars, clubs, weekend activities) and he opted out of those activities
entirely and went home to his family every day at 5pm. And we saw other teams
doing all these cool team activities (canyoneering, zip-lining, ski trips,
etc) while we were limited to activities that were less physical and involved
less alcohol. Over time, almost everyone in the team looked for opportunities
to transfer to other teams (and sometimes companies) that looked like they
were having more fun. Eventually, the team's output suffered as turnover
increased, until eventually, he ended up leaving. The net effect was hugely
disruptive to the company.

I can absolutely appreciate the argument that these culture fit tests become a
way to discriminate against minorities, genders and people of a different
age...and that's absolutely wrong. But we also need to accept that employees
don't view work as a 9-5 working sentence that's completely separate from
their life outside of work. To the extent that employees want work to be part
of their overall lives, you need to hire a cohesive group. It's a hard problem
to solve simply because humans are social animals, there's no universally
correct answer and so much of our psychology isn't well understood by so many
of us.

~~~
wrs
I guess I’m an “older coder”, though my knees are doing OK, but _never_ in my
life would I have wanted to work at a place where there’s mandatory attendance
at ski trips and zip-lining. That sounds utterly awful. Maybe you’re
attributing something to age that is just a matter of taste? And maybe that’s
not a good way to limit your hiring?

~~~
curun1r
Nothing was mandatory and, in fact, the team leads purposefully organized
events to be inclusive to everyone on the team. That was the whole point...by
including an older, less-physically-capable team member, it was no longer an
option to do fun, youth-oriented team events. And that person was excluded
from work-related conversations that happened at after-work bar trips, which
caused some awkwardness when the rest of the team aligned behind a significant
decision and the excluded team member felt like he wasn't consulted. The team
had a 20s-oriented culture and all but one team member participated. You can
call it age discrimination, but he didn't fit the culture. And by trying to
force him into the culture, with the best of intentions, the company lost the
rest of the team to other positions/companies.

I guess what I'm saying is that many employees want their work to have a
social component and will seek out employment that gives them that. So
companies that don't include a culture fit criteria can risk alienating those
employees. One would hope that a large enough company can use cultural fit as
a sorting criteria more so than a filtering criteria. But the narrative that
prevails here...cultural fit is just a code word for discrimination...feels
too naive and lacking nuance. Human social interaction is complex and seeking
to view workers as interchangeable cogs based on their capabilities to do work
is much too simplistic. Which is not to say that cultural fit isn't an excuse
to discriminate, which it often is. I'm only trying to point out that it's a
really complex issue that has no universally correct side or answer. It's
almost always situational and there's no blanket policy or rule that you can
apply to address the issue. Trying to force companies to be culture-fit-blind
causes its own set of problems.

And I say all this as a 40s coder, so I'm sure I'd miss out on a number of
positions based on cultural fit.

~~~
astura
>Nothing was mandatory

Sounds like it was mandatory.

>And that person was excluded from work-related conversations that happened at
after-work bar trips, which caused some awkwardness when the rest of the team
aligned behind a significant decision and the excluded team member felt like
he wasn't consulted.

If not going creates a problem, it's mandatory, period.

Additionally, arranging your work discussions and decisions around alcohol
consumption can absolutely be considered religions discrimination as many
people don't consume alcohol for religious reasons and you certainly don't
have any business justification for it. Also discrimination on pregnancy
status.

I'm sorry but "some employees desire youth-oriented forced 'socialization'
after work hours" is not a justification for breaking the law, it just isn't.

~~~
baobabKoodaa
> Additionally, arranging your work discussions and decisions around alcohol
> consumption can absolutely be considered religions discrimination as many
> people don't consume alcohol for religious reasons and you certainly don't
> have any business justification for it. Also discrimination on pregnancy
> status.

What a bizarre claim. Your parent poster explicitly said they tried to
organize group activities where everyone - including the old man with bad
knees - could participate. Knowing this, it's safe to assume they didn't have
pregnant employees (if they chose alcohol related activities while striving to
include everyone).

> If not going creates a problem, it's mandatory, period.

Again, such a weird position to take. So, in your opinion, no after work
events should ever take place unless every single employee is present at all
times and during all discussions? After all, that's what you were referring to
with that "problem": a worker who is not present at an after-work discussion,
leading to a slightly awkward situation the next monday.

~~~
kayoone
No decisions on work-specific matters should be taken on non-mandatory social
events were some team members can't/don't want to attend. If you do it, fill
the missing people in the next day, the same way someone was missing from an
important meeting for whatever work-related reason.

------
tyingq
Interesting topic, but...

 _" Among the 300 companies I spoke to, only 20% told me they engaged in
screening for specific traits beyond soft skills."_

Not convinced self disclosure is the best way to determine what they actually
screen for.

~~~
ammon
The conversations involved me asking them to talk through the details of their
interview process and decision-making. I _think_ there were good incentives
for companies be honest (given the context of us matching engineers with
them). I did the classification into types of screening after, based on my
notes.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
It’s still hard to know what this means. For example, all the senior engineers
I currently work with are great at telling a story about how they look to hire
based on talent, self-awareness, critical thinking, and many soft skills, and
that the technical particulars are only incidental guideposts.

Then they proceed to ask candidates to derive a card shuffling algorithm on a
whiteboard in 30 minutes and fail them from the interview if the running time
complexity would be too high or if they can’t mathematically prove the result
would be a uniform draw from the space of permutations of the cards.

Whatever story they tell you, it’s not about whether they are lying or not,
it’s about the extreme myopia in tech where these people actually believe they
are sleuthing out the inner talents and dispositions of candidates when they
are obviously doing nothing but berating candidates with parochial,
uninformative trivia.

~~~
tzs
> Then they proceed to ask candidates to derive a card shuffling algorithm on
> a whiteboard in 30 minutes and fail them from the interview if the running
> time complexity would be too high or if they can’t mathematically prove the
> result would be a uniform draw from the space of permutations of the cards.

I'd actually expect a surprisingly large fraction of programmers to be able to
do reasonably OK on that particular problem--and I don't mean just those with
CS degrees. I'm including the ones that are entirely self taught. In fact,
especially those.

That's because so many of us, even those with CS degrees or other common
degrees that programmers get instead of CS [1], started out trying to write
games or other things that needed to shuffle, were sure that the obvious
approach we took was right, and then found out it wasn't and why. It was our
first personal encounter with the idea that you can analyze and reason about
algorithms and their correctness.

In other words, shuffling was one of the first algorithmic "aha!" moments for
many of us, and you don't really forget those.

[1] Mine is math, not CS, for example. Partly that's because when I got my
degree, in the early '80s at Caltech, Caltech did not have an undergraduate CS
degree. The CS department only offered graduate degrees. They had all the
necessary undergraduate coursework available--they just had not yet put
together a formal degree program.

~~~
tzs
For those who haven't seen it, here is how you can show with a counting and
divisibility argument that a common algorithm many come up with to shuffle is
not a fair shuffle.

Here's the algorithm, in pseudo code (yes, with 1-based arrays!):

    
    
      let a = [1, 2, 3, ...., N]  # the items to shuffle
      for i = 1 to N
        j = random_in(1, N)
        swap(a[i], a[j])
    

Imagine that random_in() makes a log of all its return values. In this program
every time it is called it returns an integer >= 1 and <= N. It is called N
times. Thus, the log consists of N integers with N possible values for each
integer. In what follows we shall call such a log a trace of the program
(because log could be confused for logarithm). (Trace has a meaning in linear
algebra, but that should not cause a problem here).

That means that there are N^N distinct possible traces. Each of these traces
is equally likely. We can associate with each of the traces a shuffle, namely
the shuffle that results from the run of the program that produced that trace.

This gives us a list of N^N shuffles. This list will contain duplicates,
because there are only N! distinct shuffles, and N! < N^N.

The shuffle is fair if and only if each possible shuffle occurs the same
number of times in the list of N^N shuffles. For it to be even possible for
that to happen, we must have N! divides N^N.

But if N > 2, that cannot happen. To show this note that if N! divides N^N,
then every divisor of N! must divide N^N. Pick a prime P such that (1) p < N
and (2) P does not divide N. Then p is a divisor of N! but is not a divisor of
N^N, which shows that N! does not divide N^N, and so the shuffle is not fair.

Can we really always pick such a prime? Yes. If N is divisible by every prime
p < N, then N-1 must be prime, but then N-1 is a prime < N that does not
divide N.

Note that you cannot save this class of algorithm by doing more passes. Those
just change the size of the trace from N^N to N^(kN) for some integer N. Nor
can you save it by changing it to pick both indices at random for the swap
instead of picking only one at random. That just changes N^N to (N^2)^N =
N^(2N). As long as the random number generator is always asked for a number in
{1, 2, ..., N} and it is called the same number of times every time the
program is run, the trace size is going to be a power of N, and cannot be
divide evenly by N!

Now we can see why Fisher-Yates might work. It asks for a random number up to
N the first iteration, up to N-1 the second iteration, and so on. That means
its trace is N! long. There is no problem dividing N! by N!. Since N!/N! = 1,
if we can show that each shuffle is included, that will also show that each is
included the same number of times, and hence that Fisher-Yates is fair.

All we have to do now to see that Fisher-Yates is fair is show that each
shuffle can be produced by it. Given a desired shuffle, it is easy to
construct the trace that results in it, and we are done.

~~~
stcredzero
I just thought of it this way: You're implementing "n P n" which just reduces
to n factorial. So you just have to show that your 1st iteration is choosing
from n items, your 2nd iteration is choosing from (n - 1) items, ... the (n -
1)th iteration is choosing from 2 items. (Choosing from 1 item is a noop, of
course.)

 _All we have to do now to see that Fisher-Yates is fair is show that each
shuffle can be produced by it. Given a desired shuffle, it is easy to
construct the trace that results in it, and we are done._

You mean: Given a desired shuffle, you show you can construct the _only_ trace
that results in it.

------
harryh
I'm pretty suspicious about most conversations about culture fit: I think they
are more smoke than fire.

Especially in technology, where it's a seller's market for labor I don't think
a lot of companies are actually screening on this criterion. Do they think you
are smart and can do the work? Then companies are going to want to hire you
with the possible exception of if they think you are a huge asshole or
complete weirdo.

I don't think anyone cares all that much beyond that.

~~~
theorique
In my experience, culture fit is exactly that - a nice way of saying that the
candidate was "a huge asshole or complete weirdo."

It's shorthand for "I think they could probably do the work, but I don't think
that I/we could actually stand working with this particular candidate".

~~~
harryh
Ya.

Are you a sports loving bro? I don't care.

Are you an arty hipster? I don't care.

Are you a birkenstock wearing vegan nature lover? I don't care.

Do you yell at people when you get upset over minor disagreements? Well that's
gonna be a problem....

~~~
sampleinajar
How do you reliably and accurately select for that in an interview? Try to
constantly trigger them?

~~~
finnthehuman
Asking about their previous work experience and steering the conversation
towards teamwork is usually enough rope for them to hang themselves.

------
kthejoker2
Outside of "exhibits basic social grace and custom", culture to me is:

* Diversity of thought and multidisciplinary approach to problem solving * How you view teams, how you would organize a team you were going to be part of, what makes a good team * How you handle failure, defeat, and disappointment * How you handle difficult people and situations * Your communication style, especially for bad news * How you convince others to change * Your view on work life balance * Your attitude towards management and leadership styles * Your appetite for risk and entrepreneurship * Your dispute resolution tactics

There may be others... In any case you can address most of these for senior
hires with simple SBO questioning.

For juniors you're probably best off just focusing on communication skills,
working in teams, and challenging situations or failures.

------
bjornlouser
Good culture fit is when we ask an employee to do something and they do it. A
bad fit is someone who occasionally says no. A toxic employee occasionally
says no and explains why they won't.

~~~
atomi
I've always thought being meek and obedient was part and parcel of working for
someone else.

But I think being a good culture fit is a bit more than that.

~~~
adrianmonk
My theory is hire smart professionals, then treat them like they're smart and
professional.

They should be expected to have an opinion and allowed to express it. If you
don't want any of your ideas challenged ever, then don't waste your money
hiring a person with a brain. And if you hire someone with 10 years of
experience, hopefully you can appreciate that they've learned something in
that time that give them a perspective you want to hear.

But, of course, after they've respectfully disagreed, they should also be
ready to set aside their opinion and go along with whatever was decided. That
comes with the professional part of smart and professional.

------
ammon
An interesting point that I ended up cutting from the blog post is that
companies also use culture as a selling point to convince candidates to join.
We have seen this work (convince a candidate to take an offer). However, most
companies underestimate how similar their culture pitch is to other pitches
candidates hear. I think these pitches are less effective than most companies
think they are.

~~~
theorique
Culture: "we have a billiards table and like craft beer. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT
FIND ANOTHER STARTUP LIKE US!" /sarcasm

~~~
mikro2nd
Interviewee: That's good. I BREW craft beer.

/gotcha

~~~
stcredzero
In that case, the interviewee is eliminated for failing to recognize the
sarcasm.

------
elvinyung
I was at a talk by Emily Chang about her new book _Brotopia_ , and she raised
a really good question: why frame it in terms of culture _fit_ , as if culture
is something pristine to be preserved? Why not think of it as culture
_addition_ , that is, in terms of trying to assess how much one can bring to
the table?

~~~
mc32
I think because when we think about culture fit, what people can add is
already in the equation. When a culture fit is used to DQ someone it’s because
on balance they subtracted more than they added relative to other candidates.

~~~
elvinyung
I think that's only a post hoc rationalization -- the point being that culture
"fit" is also very easy to hide behind for people who are attempting to
preserve a perceived consistency.

Obviously all of these are just mental abstractions, but I contend that one is
easier to think about as someone who cares about diversity.

~~~
mc32
To me the whole culture fit is a circus and there to make people believe they
are being virtuous, etc. It’s BS.

That said, there is some value in sharing some important core principles.

However, to me either someone can execute their responsibilities, or they
can’t—but it’s dufficult to infer that from a pre-work interview.

As it is non conforming cultural fit might be someone who doesn’t drink like a
fish, or someone who needs to take care of family obligations after working
hours, for example.

------
crazygringo
> _Uber, however, might be a different story... For years before this, they
> selected for aggressive employees, who wanted to be owners, not renters._

For a company built on the sharing/renting economy, that's... ironic.

------
ska
In my experience "Candidate X isn't a good cultural fit" has almost always
been used as short had for either "I don't want us to hire them, but I can't
articulate why in way I am comfortable with" or less often "What an asshole".

I don't think I've ever been part of a conversation about "cultural fit" that
wasn't swimming in bullshit, or at least wading in it.

~~~
LanceH
A big classifier I've seen that gets put under "cultural fit" is the "it's not
my job" problem. A startup can't have people saying that, but big enterprise
companies live by it. Some people just can't transition from one to the other.

I've found in interviews that some people expect to do exactly what their
credentials have prepared them for. At least for the places I've worked,
that's insufficient for programming and other tech.

~~~
nradov
My first job involving any real technical work was as a PC repair technician
in a small independent store. One day the owner told one of the other
technicians to empty the garbage can because it was overflowing and everyone
else was busy. The other tech refused and went on some bullshit rant about how
he was a computer technician, not a garbageman. That made a real impression on
me and since then I've tried to pitch in and do whatever needs doing
regardless of whether it's in my explicit job description or not.

~~~
ahartmetz
> I've tried to pitch in and do whatever needs doing regardless of whether
> it's in my explicit job description or not.

IME this is also how you have the most fun at work, provided that the "extra"
tasks you take on aren't particularly unpleasant.

------
mk89
I think that hiring for culture fit is not the hardest thing to do - it's no
different from hiring for technical skills. It just requires that you have
some background in psychology so that you can easily spot someone who is
lying. Of course, it doesn't mean that you need to have a master degree in
psychology. You can learn, and here experience and gut feelings play a very
important role, although as someone has said, there are interesting questions
you can ask to tell the Rockstar from the team player. So yes, you can use
normal questions plus gut feelings.

For me more important than hiring the right people is how to retain the good
ones and prevent assholes to prevail and destroy the nice atmosphere at work.

Prevention is nothing if you don't act when the problem occurs. And eventually
it will.

I can't believe that companies like Amazon or Google with > 100000 employees
only hire great people culturally fit. We are animals, and when put together
there is always someone that wants to prevail. And there is always the
culturally unfit that somehow sneaks in. The difference is how you tackle
that. I have seen and been in companies where the action was literally doing
nothing. _You_ have to change to behave in a different way towards the
asshole, in order to make your life easier. That's the answer. Lots of "Let's
hire for good fit", but no "how to deal with a __holes at work that disrupt
your work environment ".

Ps. People should read the "no as*hole rule" book. A first good resource on
how to deal with such people.

------
motohagiography
Culture fit is a euphemism for shared values, and those are a mix of where
strategy meets background.

Trouble I have seen is that companies don't talk about those two things
because they truly are the value proposition of the firm. Often this is not
precisely clear.

The real strategy of a company is necessarily hidden, but the direction it
yields is something people can align to, knowingly or more often, not.

Is the strategy to get acquired for IP or because they were positioned to
execute in a growth market, or maybe to create or dominate a market? These are
radically different, but you can tell by looking at a cap table and an office
what their plan is.

Do they need people to not ask questions, or do they need compelling
visionaries? Maybe they need people to keep the ball in the air, engineers to
optimize and scale big ideas, or new blood in an ossified institution. Those
strategic outcomes define culture.

When I hear people say, "culture eats strategy for breakfast," I always think,
"yeah, without strategy, culture starves." As you can tell I'm a real hit at
off sites.

------
WisNorCan
Amazon stands out among the tech giants with the most distinctive behavioral
values (LPs*). They are used for both recruiting, decision making and career
advancements. Amazon provides a strong counter example to the thesis of this
article.

[1] [https://www.amazon.jobs/principles](https://www.amazon.jobs/principles)

------
seppin
"I don't want to spend 8 hours a day with this person" is a perfectly good
reason not to hire someone.

~~~
ionforce
Do you maintain that stance if that sentiment is rooted in gender or race or
sexuality (etc etc)?

~~~
jayalpha
My mind is still puzzled by this discussion and I will think deeply about it.
But regarding your question: Yes, why not? I learned it the hard way that
sometimes some kind of sentiment is good. :-)

~~~
astura
>why not?

Because it's illegal?

------
deathanatos
Huh. I reserve "culture fit" to mean "did the candidate make racist, sexist,
or ageist remarks (or other such similar remarks about something absolutely
unrelated to actual engineering)?"

I've yet to not hire someone under this. (Though I have one person who I would
not hire today, but I still do not know how I would have screened for them in
the interview.)

Seems like I'm the only one, though. The rest of the comments seem to indicate
looking for something deeper.

------
Suntracker
The phrase "Culture Fit" has many shades and hues. Generally, the hiring
manager and his/her team would take a call on "cultural aspect", which in
principle should be a fair representation of the company culture. But on many
occasions that may not be case. If a manager has a bias and certain
prejudicial views, it becomes culture of the team/group. In that case, a
"culture fit" aspect of interview is meaningless.

------
uhhhhhhh
In my experience, "Culture fit" has always been the cover for "toxic"
workplaces where sexism, bullying and worse run rampant.

If everyone acts professional then chances are you'll figure out how to work
together. If you're unable to act professional then chances are the new hire
isn't the problem, you are.

~~~
BadassFractal
The candidate can also be toxic and unprofessional, this is a two-way street.
What if the company doesn't want to bring "sexism, bullying and worse" into
the group?

~~~
donbright
then wouldn't we would be able to correlate rates of lower toxic behavior,
like harassment and conflict, with the practice of 'cultural fit'? like doing
some kind of empirical study?

ironically i would wager that the people who can pass a 'cultural fit' test
with the highest score might actually be Sociopaths, since they are the world
experts at being charming to complete and utter strangers.

~~~
BadassFractal
Note I'm not defending a "cultural fit test" here. I don't even know what that
means, it's an amorphous concept with few specifics, everybody defines it how
they want.

My point is that from day 1 you have to protect your group from outsiders who
are unprofessional, toxic, and will sink morale and productivity. How you do
it is up to you, but the issue cannot be naively framed as "companies are bad
and sexist, while pure, good-natured, kind human beings are rejected from
positions they deserve unfairly".

That's a nice fairy tale that falls apart once you yourself spend a few years
hiring.

------
jdauriemma
If your company culture is valuable to you, articulate the things that make it
valuable and write them down. Make sure the criteria are specific and
measurable, then apply them to the interview and evaluation process.

------
eplanit
They mean "Bias Fit".

------
_audakel
> Obviously, screening for specific personality traits has not kept
> Bridgewater or Stripe from succeeding. Uber, however, might be a different
> story. I am going to argue that personality trait screening may have harmed
> Uber.

I agree there has been turmoil that has been detrimental to uber. But maybe
the fact they specifically looked for hard core, "won't take no for an answer"
is the reason they reached massive market / valuation they did. Lyft choose
the "friendly" route and didn't get anything close to Uber size/valuation.

I'm not saying this is the best strategy/ always works, but you are saying you
consider stripe successful basically because they have not had turmoil/bad
press, despite the fact they are a fraction of the value of Uber.

Tldr: you probably NEED aggressive, won't take no, type of ppl to grow to a
Uber size as quickly as they did.

------
DoofusOfDeath
> A company is its employees.

This is a bit nit-picky, but I find it distracting when an article leads with
a statement that strikes me as grossly inaccurate.

Because if the rest of the article hinges on the accuracy of that opening
statement, I'm likely to regret having spent time reading the article.

Clarification: The reason I'm skeptical of that particular opening statement
is AFAIK U.S. corporations can have assets, liabilities, etc. that are very
different than simply the sum of their employees. For example, I would gladly
accept the parts of Apple that aren't employees: its bank accounts, patent
portfolio, etc.

~~~
djsumdog
I thought the same thing. A company is also its buildings, equipment, things
that can be liquidated, it's founders, it's principal investors, etc..

~~~
philwelch
A company whose value lies solely or predominantly in its tangible or
liquefiable assets is a company that an efficient market will soon liquify,
and thus ceases to be a company.

------
golemiprague
Culture fit is what people really feel inside but don't want to talk about
because the current religion dictates that diversity is the best thing for a
company. The thing is, for most tasks, homogenous and cohesive team is much
more efficient and performant. It is easier for most people to work with
people who are similiar to them, both culturally, racially, temperamentally,
IQ level and anything else you can think about. Companies, like countries tend
to disintegrate when they become too diverse. Sometimes, small doses of
diversity are necessary for break throughs and creativity, but it is small
doses, not the main way things suppose to work day by day.

~~~
donbright
Every single sentence you wrote above is factually wrong, demonstrated not
only by the study of the history of economics and society, but also
empirically in something as simple as a genetic algorithm evolution inside a
computer.

