re: Interviews and Infants VIEW POST

TOP OF THREAD FULL DISCUSSION
re: Maybe we're talking about a different "culture fit", but I'd argue that, finding someone who has similar ideals and beliefs as others on your team ...

Well, this study shows that the problem with "cultural fit" is that "cultural preferences of emotion" may lead to hiring biases. That doesn't sounds like equal opportunity employment to me and it could not only be morally wrong, but also illegal.

Besides, this essay suggests that "hiring the ‘best’ people produces the least creative results". So good luck with that.

Neither of these studies disproves the merits of hiring based off culture fit, they just make general assumptions of what "culture fit" means.

The first talks about candidates who are calm and collected being at a disadvantage over those who are excited and energetic. This might be true of some industries, but not ALL of them.

As the second article states, hiring for a specific culture fit hinders diversity. I couldn't disagree more. Culture fit has nothing to do with diversity and any company hiding being "culture fit" as an excuse not to hire a diverse workforce is one you don't want to work at.

Cultural fit, for me, is far more than just how you answer some whacky question aimed to see how "creative" you can be. I want to know that you're passionate about your work and take pride in it. I want to know that you're open to trying new things and aren't just going to come to work to collect a paycheck. I want to know that you can take direction but also offer feedback if you see something wrong. I want to know that you have some interests outside of work and you're not going to burn out in 6 months. Above all else, I want to know that you can communicate within a team with conviction, without sounding arrogant.

If that's not you, that's totally fine. There are plenty of jobs out there for you in corporate and government settings. I've hired people before purely based on skill and how well they can solve complex problems and it rarely works out. While I will still test candidates based on their technical skills, unless you're hiring into a senior-level role, technical ability is usually further down the list than most others. If you can't impress during the interview, it's not the company's fault you did't get hired.

Sure, you can disagree with the academic sources I have mentioned without offering any source as an argument, other than your own opinion. But you do realize that you cannot hire or not hire people based on your evaluation of how likely are they to burn out in 6 months.

Anxiety and depression are recognized disabilities and are protected unde equal opportunity employment laws, so it's not only morally wrong but it’s also illegal. I am not even going to ask what you will do when someone shows up to the interview and they already experience anxiety. How likely will it be that they will be a cultural fit? Let’s be realistic.

It’s not enough that candidates have to prepare and develop their technical skills, you are suggesting that now they also have to ask themselves questions like “will I fit the culture?”. Is that an anxiety reducing mechanism or is that something designed to protect the company and its precious “culture”?

Sure, you can disagree with the academic sources I have mentioned without offering any source as an argument, other than your own opinion.

I didn't offer any sources because I don't disagree with what they're saying. I just think they're defining "culture fit" differently than I do, so their points are mostly irrelevant to my comments. I'm very sure there are plenty of companies that hide behind "culture fit" as an excuse to discriminate against candidates. This is not what I'm talking about.

If one candidate is clearly more skilled than the other, assuming she or he is not an arrogant know-it-all (if you think hiring that guy just because he's the most "skilled" is the right move, then you've clearly not working on teams with people like that...), of course, they should be the one to get hired. However, if there are several, equally qualified, candidates, of course their soft skills should be the deciding factor - what else do they have to offer?

I think the disparity here is you're talking about "culture fit" as someone who can answer what color they'd most like their office to be painted, or some other crazy "personality" question. I'm talking about soft skills. Your ability to effectively communicate with the people you'll be working with. This isn't just saying the right words, it's HOW you say them.

But you do realize that you cannot hire or not hire people based on your evaluation of how likely are they to burn out in 6 months.

Anxiety and depression are recognized disabilities and are protected unde equal opportunity employment laws, so it's not only morally wrong but it’s also illegal. I am not even going to ask what you will do when someone shows up to the interview and they already experience anxiety. How likely will it be that they will be a cultural fit? Let’s be realistic.

Maybe "burn out" is the wrong way to say it. I'm talking about retention. I'm not talking about mental health and anxiety. My mother has clinical depression, both of her brothers are bipolar and her family has a long history of depression. I've experienced it myself, too.

I'm talking about candidates being actually interested in the products you build. If you're building an educational platform to help kids in the classroom learn, of course you're looking for people that feel like the work they'd be doing means something. If you're just in it for the pay check, maybe that particular job isn't right for you.

It’s not enough that candidates have to prepare and develop their technical skills, you are suggesting that now they also have to ask themselves questions like “will I fit the culture?”. Is that an anxiety reducing mechanism or is that something designed to protect the company and its precious “culture”?

Nope, I'm saying that candidates shouldn't just apply to every job they're qualified for, because they check off a few boxes on the job description. If employers have the right to reject you because of "culture fit", so should you. Do your research on the company and understand what they actually do. So many candidates now days don't even include a cover letter, and if they do, they're generic copy and paste pieces with "Dear XXX" filled in. If you're not going to take the time to make yourself standout, one of the other 30 applicants is going to get the job.

To be clear: I'm not at all saying this is how Christina went about things. I believe her situation to be a bit more nuanced than that. It's super unfortunate that employers would have rejected her for anything related to her new child and family. I'd have thought it to be AWESOME if a candidate had to do a phone interview holding their child and would be more than accommodating if we had to reschedule because parenting came up. That's some pretty awesome dedication! Anyone strong enough to go through that to get a job is someone I want on my team. Why an employer would find it off putting is beyond me, but I say, good riddance to them, if that's how they want to operate.

I’m sorry to hear about your family’s and your own mental health problems. I hope you didn’t find my comments insensitive. If you did, I apologize.

"Now, how they can decide you're a good culture fit or not after a 15 minutes interview, I'm not sure. Seems like a cop out response to me, but I'd rather be rejected for culture fit than technical inabilities. "

When I was talking about culture fit I think I was thinking more on the lines of this. I don't mind seeing if I fit in to a company. In fact there were several companies where the interviewer and I knew right away I wouldn't be a good fit for reasons like working 50+ hrs a week that wouldn't work for me as a mom of 4. But I do think it is often used as an excuse if they decide to go with someone else. I guess in those situations I'd prefer they just say "we are going with someone else" and hopefully give me some feedback. But it's a business and I understand that the excuse is used sometimes just to save time.

code of conduct - report abuse