Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

triplebyte.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 233 posts

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#11

Post by tbrownaw »

Analemma_ wrote: post #6
ska wrote: post #5

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.

> "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" Either that or "I don't want us to hire them, but I can't say why because it would be against the law." "Culture fit" has mostly become a loophole for anti-discrimination laws.

"Culture fit" has mostly become a loophole for anti-discrimination laws.

Is this just gut feel, or based on actual data? Because it sounds contrary to the survey results described in the article.

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#12

Post by 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.

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#13

Post by elvinyung »

mc32 wrote: post #9
elvinyung wrote: post #2

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?

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.

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.

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#14

Post by tvanantwerp »

elvinyung wrote: post #2

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?

If a person can add to a culture, then a person could also subtract from a culture. Getting the wrong people on the bus can be very damaging to a company. This is not to say that companies always do a good job at selecting people for addition rather than subtraction.

Any place that could be deemed a "brotopia" is likely bad at building positive culture--I know I wouldn't want to work there. But still, different people will have different effects, some of them being net positive and others net negative. And what counts as positive or negative will vary a bit from org to org. If you can call culture fit a "culture addition", a lack of culture fit may be a case of "culture subtraction".

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#15

Post by 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.

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#16

Post by TAForObvReasons »

tbrownaw wrote: post #11
Analemma_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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" Either that or "I don't want us to hire them, but I can't say why because it would be against the law." "Culture fit" has mostly become a loophole for anti-discrimination laws.

"Culture fit" has mostly become a loophole for anti-discrimination laws. Is this just gut feel, or based on actual data? Because it sounds contrary to the survey results described in the article.

There is no untainted data in the subject. Any company that finds itself systemically rejecting protected classes of people through the "culture fit" label is asking for a lawsuit if they made it known to anyone.

This is generally a problem with discrimination cases, it is extremely rare to find a real "smoking gun", usually it's just the end result that looks abnormal

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#17

Post by theorique »

LanceH wrote: post #8
ska wrote: post #5

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.

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 an…

Do you mean that the candidate is too inclined to say "that's not my job" when they might be called upon to perform tasks that lie outside their narrow area of focus?

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#18

Post by theorique »

ammon wrote: post #7

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.

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

Re: What Companies Mean by Culture Fit

#20

Post by djsumdog »

ska wrote: post #5

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.

At one shop, I think it was more of a question of, "Will this person work 70 hours a week as salary exempt."

If you have a toxic manager asking these questions, you get employees who will work long hours to fix bad planning decisions. If that manager makes the wrong call, they get an employee who refuses to week over 45 hours a week and they are usually let go so other people don't get the same idea.

Post reply on HN