In a recent batch of interviews (four opportunities local, three remote), I was put through a specific culture fit step of the interview process at all but one company, and it was part of all remote hiring processes.
I don't really agree. I come from a traditional engineering background and consider myself a professional. As such, I expect to be judged on issues of professional decorum (i.e. what I would term an "asshole test"). That is part of culture, I suppose, but beyond that there should be no "fit" determination. This is especially true since this industry assumes people are going to be changing jobs every 2 - 3 years.
I'm a professional; I adapt to my environment. Sure, I like and work in some better than others, but I can be effective and productive in almost any. Trying to optimize your hires for this while simultaneously complaining about talent shortages is counterproductive, and on some level dishonest.
Yeah, if you can do your work with minimal supervision that's gravy and stuff... but if I don't enjoy talking to you that's a huge communication red flag for me. And perhaps that's a communication flaw with me not being able to flawlessly interface with all human beings - but I'd much rather be working with the people I can level with regardless of the topic.
Fortunately, most of my roles are of the "engineer" and individual contributor variety so my opinions on potential hires are often supplemental anecdotes rather than actual decisions.
And it's foolish besides. You would "enjoy" talking to me, so long as I cared to play the game you want to play. There's no reason for that to continue once I've got the job (though at this point in my career I don't need to play your as monkey).
The third rail in these discussions is that, in tech, it is very likely that I also look like you and it is very likely that I speak similarly enough to you. I get a free pass for a lot of things from that. My lack of "culture fit" is by choice, because I think tech culture is a tire fire of gross mentalities and I don't mind criticizing it. Others have an uphill slog that is not of their choice.
As a brown liberal-republican with a military background and an education in psychology I am definitely just like every other techie in the Bay Area, of course, and I should stop leveraging my background because I'm obviously part of your unethical and immoral bell curve. I guess.
I fail to see how it's my fault if you play mind games to get into my good graces. Most people adapt their persona to their situation in the first place - it's common to be a "different person" when you're with your family, your friends, and your coworkers. And given most of these positions are contractual... I guess it depends on how long you're looking for a job.
I tend to be pretty ability-driven in my decision making process and rarely dismiss a person entirely because I don't "want to have drinks". But if they're not a personable individual maybe it's not me who has to do the growing for them, eh?
Someone's ability to adapt shows tactical proficiency. Particularly in an engineering environment I would put a high premium on tactical proficiency because the objectives are typically explicit and linear.
Culture fit speaks to traits like open-mindedness, inclusion and confidence in leadership. These are less linear, but no less important.
I would like to hear more from jcadam about the culture fit judgment he experienced. Was it really that you were not like them, or was it that you are from, and fit better with a different culture?
Culture fit isn't about listening to the same music, or what you do on a Friday night. It's a less tangible, but collective agreement about purpose and objective. I am from the Midwest (Ohio), and I have worked in Manhattan and Los Angeles over a couple of decades at a couple of different companies. I am aware of a distinct difference between East and West coast culture and thinking, and likewise, Ohio culture and thinking.
None of this is meant to judge superiority of any culture over another. Simply, if you are seeking to optimize an entire organization for the best possible results in working towards your objectives, culture fit is relevant.
My opinion, hinted at in another post in this discussion, is that this optimization is a fool's errand, particularly for a larger team. If the decision is between a New York startup hiring a technically-competent Midwesterner or waiting six months to find that optimal East Coast fit, it makes no sense to choose the latter.
"'> It's valid, I believe, for the company to vet candidates for culture fit' I don't really agree..."
You go on to say it is "counterproductive" and "dishonest."
Maybe if you reduce it to a specific, binary instance ("hiring a technically-competent Midwesterner or waiting six months") you can shoehorn your point in to the conversation, but that fails to refute the validity or relevance of cultural fit.
I'm very good at passing such tests because I know how the kinds of people who think this is a good idea operate and what to feed them--by avoiding discomfort and self-introspection I think it's a lot easier to end up in a mental cul-de-sac that leads to being easily played. But knowing the game makes playing it even more gross, so I don't. (Things are better here on the East Coast than the Bay Area, but they're not good.)
"It seems to me..." does not count as evidence.
Nor do demographic reports on the composition of companies that use "culture fit," since correlation does not imply causation.
Good leadership earns, deserves and requires confidence from the community that makes up the organization. I would go a step further to say great leadership earns, deserves and requires faith (to be crystal clear, non-religious faith).
The cynicism and reductive reasoning you are expressing is a good counterpoint.
Leaders have numerous tools and opportunities to shape culture positively or negatively. Thanks for showing a counterpoint to my view. Whichever perspective you choose it speaks to the relevance of culture fit.
So let's not let you dodge. How about the structural and institutionalized sexism and racism involved in "culture fit" as is actually practiced, not how you'd like to redefine it? "Culture fit is about open-mindedness and inclusion" except when somebody has some melanin to them or an accent or a couple of X chromosomes. We just going to pretend that's not a thing, now?
You seem to be taking issue with the the fact that organizations use culture fit to veil their racism, sexism, etc. I am not denying that happens and I believe that is wrong.
As I said in my previous post, my point is that, "It's a less tangible, but collective agreement about purpose and objective." It has validity, value and relevance.
Maybe it's the term or your experiences that prompted your response, but that's really not the conversation I'm having. If you want to post something about calling it something else, or have a conversation about, "when culture fit goes wrong..." I'd probably participate in that too.
I'm not sure what culture fit means. I have been passed over for culture fit and seen others passed over for culture fit and I have never seen it be because someone couldn't be productive with their peers. It seems, anecdotally, to just be based upon affinity, which seems stupid to me unless you're a lifestyle brand, like FitStar.
In the Army I learned culture can be taught. All of these groups who hire for culture fit seem like they want to hang out with other people like them. People who are nothing like me have been my best hires. I've indoctrinated them into our values, and only on rare occasions has that not worked out.
If culture fit isn't a "bro test" then why test at all? Why not just teach people your culture? Do companies expect people to come in off the street serendipitously sharing the same values? That smells to me like a leadership vacuum.
This requires effort. The obsession with "leanness" translates into skimping on many things; instilling a rigorous culture is one of them. It takes too long and costs too much and it's easier to just emoji-shrug.
> That smells to me like a leadership vacuum.
Oh, you noticed.
It's far easier for most young companies with ping pong tables to hire developers that like ping pong than actually endeavor to build a company culture and attempt to instill those values into their hires.
What do you mean by "indoctrinated"?
There are lots of different components to culture. There is no rigor behind it, which is in contrast to the self-described emphasis on extreme logical rigor that the industry is allegedly built on. Why is there such an emphasis on "culture fit" in the software industry?
Of course, lunch with the team was part of the process as well (Eating while being evaluated is never fun, and I find I don't eat much).