What Companies Mean by Culture Fit • Hacker News Board

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#141

Post by mlthoughts2018 » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 10:13 PM UTC

SonnyWortzik wrote: post #119

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.

Often companies actually do care more about optics than productivity. I’ve definitely worked in large, successful companies where wearing the skinny jeans and drinking the smoothie are vastly more important than your productivity most of the time.

Another big, obvious manifestation of this is open-plan offices.

“Does working in a noisy, open space that doesn’t actually save significant money relative to engineer salaries and lost productivity matter when you have a mile long back log?”

Yes, as it turns out, displaying the optics of looking visually like a hip start-up stereotype does matter more than the mile long back log.

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#142

Post by zoomablemind » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

ammon wrote: post #4

tyingq wrote: post #3

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.

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.

Also a big factor here is a team that would receive the new hire. Hiring managers may not exactly be people readers to knowingly identify a 'culture' or what makes this particular team stable/ performing. Skillset is one thing, yet the team dynamics is another.

For example, a stable team needs both extroverts and introverts, the ratio is not exactly fixed. Yet matching an extrovert to dominantly extroverted team may not be the best choice. How much one can tell at the first impression? Are we back to the era of personality tests at the interview?

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#143

Post by badcede » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 10:25 PM UTC

chosenbreed wrote: post #127

lovich wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>...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.

Spoken like a chosen breed.

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#144

Post by P_I_Staker » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 10:25 PM UTC

mmirate wrote: post #134

rleigh wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you consider it bad to say no? Do you not expect your employees to exhibit independent thought and act professionally? If someone was asked to do something which was seriously wrong, wouldn't you want them to call it out rather than be a yes man and silently let something bad happen? If they explain exactly what's wrong and why, isn't that simply being professional? Or do you just want obedient slaves?

From the perspective of a dev: why should I be anything less than a yes-man, on topics where the decision authority clearly isn't mine? The ACM Code of Ethics has no teeth, meaning CS isn't a profession; and even if the decision in question is so thoroughly self-destructive that the company goes under, there's plenty more companies to work-for in that case.

If it absolutely is something that they're qualified to make decisions regarding maybe. Oftentimes the people handling the day to day operations of a company, aren't qualified to make certain specific decisions.

Just letting your boss or colleague do whatever he/she wants is a terrible idea. Be polite, reasonable, and willing to accept defeat, even when you're in the right; but don't be a yes man. And for what reason? The authority isn't your's? Authority shouldn't be blindly followed. Authority means you make a final decision when consensus isn't reachable, not that you're beyond reproach.

I have no clue where you're coming from with that last statement. Because a code of ethics "with teeth" doesn't exist, we shouldn't adhere to one? That we have no responsibility to look after the best interests of the company, shareholders, and community? Everyone bears that responsibility. You're claiming CS isn't a profession, because there doesn't exist a board, bar, or licenses? It's just an unregulated profession.

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#145

Post by aeternus » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 10:27 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #114

rmason wrote: post #90

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.

My experience about 'culture fit' was that it was a code word for ageism. I've experienced people figuring out my age when looking at my resume, then weirdly warping the questions while accusing me of Googling the answers in response. (Based only on hearing me type. I was scripting a Python script to give the answer.)

Interesting, that instinct to Google for the answer is actually one of the 'culture fits' that we look for.

There are a surprising number of candidates & engineers that simply give up when they encounter a hard problem.

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#146

Post by rleigh » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 10:27 PM UTC

mmirate wrote: post #134

rleigh wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you consider it bad to say no? Do you not expect your employees to exhibit independent thought and act professionally? If someone was asked to do something which was seriously wrong, wouldn't you want them to call it out rather than be a yes man and silently let something bad happen? If they explain exactly what's wrong and why, isn't that simply being professional? Or do you just want obedient slaves?

From the perspective of a dev: why should I be anything less than a yes-man, on topics where the decision authority clearly isn't mine? The ACM Code of Ethics has no teeth, meaning CS isn't a profession; and even if the decision in question is so thoroughly self-destructive that the company goes under, there's plenty more companies to work-for in that case.

CS not being a profession doesn't preclude acting professionally.

As for why you shouldn't be a yes-man. I am an individual, I'm educated, skilled, and have two decades of experience and what I consider to be generally good judgement. I always attempt to give of my best and to do what is right for the best interest of the project and company/organisation. If that means pointing out facts which are wrong, ill-considered or counter to any prevailing group-think, I would do so every time. It might not always make me popular, and it might ruffle a few feathers, but to ignore problems and evade responsibility by silently going with the dictates of those above me or in the group would be a disservice to the project, the wider organisation and to myself. I refuse to be a spineless jellyfish merely to make life slightly easier for myself in the short term. I'd rather go home each day satisfied that I did the best I could despite the circumstances, than leave knowing I did mediocre or downright awful work when I could have done better.

Maybe I wouldn't be a good cultural fit in some places. But everyone in an organisation bears some level of individual responsibility, and I personally would prefer to work with people who can shoulder it, and show they care about their work by arguing their case well, rather than abrogating it and showing that they don't really care at all about what they do so long as they get paid. In my experience the output of the latter is typically mediocre at best, because they don't give a damn.

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#147

Post by lovich » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 10:33 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #106

lovich wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it speaks to bad interviewing, because these whiteboard interviews are a bad interview practice. Yea knowing how to not acciddentally get an O(n^3) bottleneck is table stakes for development. What we get however is you interviewing for a job to make data entry apps and they ask you to implement a variety offlood fill algorithms with modifications that force edge cases unless you work around it. Or you'll be m…

Yea knowing how to not acciddentally get an O(n^3) bottleneck is table stakes for development. It seems to me that a lot of younger folks want to lower the bar below that. If you're looking for devs to show that they understand the ideas, you'd be better off telling them the problem space ahead of time so that they can prepare for it, and then deeply questioning their knowledge in that space Perhaps combine that with…

The only way to tell if someone can do the job is to look at their past accomplishments through a web of trust with other engineers, or by having them do the other job.

Both of these routes put more risk on employers so they'd rather filter out the majority of people based on an inaccurate test, then throw their hands up and say there are no developers.

The whole country has at will employment and companies certainly aren't voluntarily signing any employment contract. Just fire someone if they turn out to be incompetent/fraud.

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#148

Post by ionforce » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 10:34 PM UTC

seppin wrote: post #49

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

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

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#149

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 10:46 PM UTC

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #12

> 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 ass…

[deleted]

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#150

Post by mmirate » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 10:56 PM UTC

P_I_Staker wrote: post #144

mmirate wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the perspective of a dev: why should I be anything less than a yes-man, on topics where the decision authority clearly isn't mine? The ACM Code of Ethics has no teeth, meaning CS isn't a profession; and even if the decision in question is so thoroughly self-destructive that the company goes under, there's plenty more companies to work-for in that case.

If it absolutely is something that they're qualified to make decisions regarding maybe. Oftentimes the people handling the day to day operations of a company, aren't qualified to make certain specific decisions. Just letting your boss or colleague do whatever he/she wants is a terrible idea. Be polite, reasonable, and willing to accept defeat, even when you're in the right; but don't be a yes man. And for what reason…

> I have no clue where you're coming from with that last statement. Because a code of ethics "with teeth" doesn't exist, we shouldn't adhere to one?

"I shouldn't do X" logically follows from the conjunction of "I needn't do X" and "doing X has a lesser expected-value than not doing X".

> Everyone bears that responsibility. You're claiming CS isn't a profession, because there doesn't exist a board, bar, or licenses? It's just an unregulated profession.

An unregulated profession is no profession at all. That kind of holistic, broad-minded responsibility is levied nigh-solely by professional regulation and decision-authority.

(I say "nigh" only because there's probably some extraordinary and ridiculous circumstance that doesn't come to mind right now.)