Hacker News Reader

Comment by EliRivers | Hacker News Reader

On the other hand, taking someone from a typical .Net tech shop and putting them into an open source tech shop suddenly gives that open source tech shop a whole new way of thinking; here's a person who is going to approach problems differently, and has a different set of experiences. By not hiring someone who thinks the same as everyone already there, the company becomes stronger.

We should hire for culture-UNfit. Do you think differently? Are you going to give me options nobody else here would have thought of? Do you have experience with technologies that nobody else here does? Are you going to be able to fill in some of the blind spots and vulnerabilities that would stay open if I just hired someone identical to everyone else here?

Hiring another person just the same gets me the ability to do a little more of the same. Hiring someone different gets me something new.

View on HN

> Hiring another person just the same gets me the ability to do a little more of the same. Hiring someone different gets me something new.

At one job we had some people hired who, from the stories I'm reading here, wouldn't have been good "culture fits" at a lot of companies. They were older (50+). Didn't hang out after work. Came from a different background (cellphones).

Instead, one brought us much improved coding standards that greatly accelerated our development process (by greatly reducing our debugging time). The other was just ludicrously efficient as a programmer and knew the ins and outs of embedded like no one else and single-handedly rewrote one of our major projects (which the bosses had been toying with hiring a consultant to do).

But they weren't like the rest of us. Single, 20-something, male (not universally white, we had a decent mix there). They didn't hang out with us on Saturday night. They didn't go to lunch with us. They didn't game with us when we had random game nights.

But as professionals, they brought expertise and experience and mentorship that we desperately needed.

I've had the same experience, but only with embedded developers like you described. It probably has more to do with how talent is distributed age-wise in that field.

The good embedded programmers are awesome, and there's probably something beneficial to the era they developed their skills in. These guys would've started programming in the 70s, when even desktops weren't as powerful as a couple of the chips we got to use in our "embedded" environment.

They came out of that era without being spaghetti-coders like a couple of the guys that were, basically, ousted before I got to that office. So they learned to code well within constrained (cycles, memory) environments. As more cycles and memory became available, they just used it more effectively.

Ugh, nowadays typical .NET dev is well-aware of what is open source because, FYI .NET is open sourced.

In my experience, "open source" is sometimes a code word for non-enterprise technologies, such as RoR and php and so on.

Tell you what, replace .NET with anything you like. You've focussed on the one thing I said that's meaningless and utterly superfluous to the point.

I just don't like the outdated stereotype, that's all.

You're not hiring someone the same...

You can have an entirely different skill set, knowledge base, experience base, and be a similar fit, culturally.

But you know, if you have an office full of people who enjoy spending their time together, who play games together after work, who go to lunch and laugh and talk, who listen to music out loud and don't prefer to have a library-quiet office space, then hiring someone who prefers to be a loner, who doesnt play well with others, who is arrogant, who needs absolute silence to work... those are pain points.

Culture and skills/experience are not at all related.

You just described criteria for determining who should join your frat house, not who should help you build products. Different people have different working styles and yet are still perfectly able to contribute to teams, often in ways that your culturally integrated group can't even see.

I think you've fallen into the trap of confusing the people with whom you work and the people with whom you are friends. There is zero need for those two groups to overlap, and it's really only in the tech world where the "culture fit" phenomenon is trying to force them together, often to try and get employees to work longer for free.

Or maybe your perspective (which seems jaded) is a bit different than a lot of peoples?

There is no reason that your friends and co-workers shouldnt overlap. There is no reason you shouldn't love going to work. There is no reason you shouldn't be happy in the company of the people you're around the majority of your day.

Your very post, is just you applying your own culture to a job. Part of your culture in the workplace is a detachment. Thats ok, everyone has their own thing, but you wouldn't fit into a place where people want to be inclusive, you would stand out and probably be considered an asshole by others.

You see that your view on what should happen in a workplace is very different than mine. That would cause strife over time, it would reduce our ability to work together compared to people who shared our viewpoint... While your view is equally as valid as mine, and neither are more correct than the other, they are definitely different.

Recognizing that difference is what the culture fit is all about.

And your last line, comes of as purely cynical. I don't work longer for free because i like my coworkers... I still work the same regardless, but I tend to LIKE going to work more, and enjoy my time, and feel more invested in the company when I enjoy my coworkers and share a bond with them...

If leaving Friday and not seeing your coworkers again until Monday morning makes you think someone's an asshole, you've got a very skewed definition of asshole.

Being friends/social with coworkers should be an opt-in experience, not mandatory for your employees. People have lives.

  There is no reason you shouldn't be happy in the
  company of the people you're around the majority
  of your day.

I hope to god I never spend the majority of my day in the office ever again. Work is 8 hours for me, and I love it. I'll put in overtime when I need to, I don't mind. But I get 10 hours a day of not being at work while also awake, part of it in the middle of the day at lunch. I'm friends with several of my coworkers (to varying degrees of closeness), but we're all adults, most have families, and most have hobbies or other goals. We've got bodybuilders (including a former olympian), and other athletes. We've got artists. We've got gamers. We've got homebodies. We've got authors.

If work=life is the only way to fit into your office, it had better be doing something life changing to justify that demand from your employees. Otherwise, you're stealing their precious time. The one thing we can never get back.

The clear thing here..

You're way of thinking is extremely close-minded... you're actually misrepresenting what I said to make your argument, because you're determined to make your point.

Which, as I said, goes a long way. Your way of thinking is almost entirely pragmatic - and you know what, surrounded by other entirely pragmatic people, that works well. But around a group of people who value interpersonal relationships a bit more than you do, you would indeed be the asshole. That would create a pain point in yours or others' work days.

And the biggest point of all of this, that you seem to miss, is nobody is forcing anything on you. The thing you dont like, is a style of culture, and you would avoid that culture, where others look for it... which is the entire point of the culture fit in the first place... you're making the argument FOR the culture fit by your very actions, you're proving the vast difference in cultures, and how they don't play nice together very well.

You wouldnt want to work somewhere that values the things i value - and people that value what i value wouldnt want to work for you, probably - and thats ok - and thats why the whole concept exists and is important.

> Which, as I said, goes a long way. Your way of thinking is almost entirely pragmatic - and you know what, surrounded by other entirely pragmatic people, that works well. But around a group of people who value interpersonal relationships a bit more than you do, you would indeed be the asshole. That would create a pain point in yours or others' work days.

Wait, seriously? I rarely say this on forums. But, fuck you.

I don't value interpersonal relationships? Literally the reason I live where I live is my approximately 50 good friends, about 20 close, and about 5 intimate friends. I could make a lot more money moving even 100 miles away, but I'd lose these relationships.

So, again, fuck you.

You're right. I'm not a cultural fit for companies like yours. Tell me where to apply so I can proudly display my rejection letter with the attached resume with big red "POOR CULTURE FIT" stamp.

Overreact much?

At no point did I attack you or deserve that response.

You've made it clear that your relationships are work aren't all that important to you. The context of this entire conversation is entirely focused on work... so why you would jump to relationships in general is baffling.

You're really looking for a fight that isnt there, thats why you misrepresent what I said over and over...

>> You're [sic] way of thinking is extremely close-minded

>> you would indeed be the asshole.

> At no point did I attack you

Right.

Pointed out that you're thinking close mindedly isn't an insult. You're seeing only from your perspective.

And saying that in a group of people who think more along the lines of what I described, that you would be considered an asshole isnt calling you an asshole, its saying that in that situation you people would consider you that. In the same way that me, being a thinking-rather-than-feeling person, am often accused of being an asshole by feelers...

Neither of those are attacks on you. I never said your viewpoint was wrong, I even said its valid, but it doesn't play well with people of the other viewpoint, and that neither is better, just different...

Seriously dude, stop looking for the fight, there isn't one. You're taking offense way too easily here...

Sorry, but you seem to be reading your own interpretation into what I said. I agree that there is no reason your friends and coworkers shouldn't overlap. In fact, I am good friends with several of my coworkers. At the same time, there is also no reason why they have to overlap, either. You can work perfectly fine with people whom you have no interest in holding a friendship with.

My "culture" as you put it is really an anti-culture, and it's the one that has worked for hundreds of years in workplaces around the world. I don't care whom I work with so long as they are professional, capable, and skilled in the tasks they need to do on a regular basis. What they wear, what their hobbies are, whether I enjoy talking to them about non-work activities, etc. has basically zero bearing on my evaluation of them as coworkers. In a very real sense, that approach is more open-minded and inclusive than yours, which prioritizes specific personal traits rather than job fit. That's the whole point of the post we are discussing in the first place - imposing a "culture fit" on a workplace to the exclusion of perfectly qualified people just doesn't make much sense. You might claim that employee retention and productivity are higher with a tight "culture" (though I would be extremely skeptical about that claim), but at what cost does that come? Or how about this - how well would the Apollo program have worked if NASA insisted that every engineer, astronaut, and flight controller had to be friends? If you want the best of the best, you deal with personal differences and still accomplish great things.

My last line is indeed cynical because it comes from the perspective of having been around the block a few times when it comes to companies supporting employees vs. supporting bottom lines. I've also seen how paragons of "strong culture" fall apart once employees get out of their 20s and start to have a family and social life compete with work. I really do hope that you're able to continue working with people you enjoy hanging out with every day, but unfortunately real life tends to make that difficult over time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com