Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewstuart | Hacker News Reader

I'm a recruiter and have heard this more times than I can remember as the reason given for why a candidate is not suitable.

I think it is simply a convenient, sufficiently vague, unarguable reason to say no.

It's important to understand that people feel very uncomfortable rejecting another person, and in recruiting, companies really prefer not to give any reason at all - this is because they don't want the candidate to come back arguing with the reasons given for the rejection.

So "not a cultural fit" is just an easy way to say no thanks, whilst giving a "reason" that can't be argued with.

It's not discriminatory.

View on HN

"Culture fit" is just too vague and only provides cover for discrimination. Internal discussions/documents should give the detailed reasons (is a jerk, not on time, not a rule follower, etc). If the people/company are uncomfortable with sharing that outside the company, you don't need to say anything more than we didn't choose you. The internal documents are your protection in the case of a law suit.

Yeah, but an easy way to say no thanks while giving a reason that can't be argued with is the perfect instrument with which to discriminate. I suspect that lawyers on both sides are noticing this, and that the term is on its way out.

In my experience on the hiring side of the equation, recruiters often _demand_ a reason why an applicant was rejected. I'd prefer to diplomatically say they were a poor culture fit rather than explain that they were conceited, had poor english skills, or seemed high maintenance.

I’m turning 50 in two weeks. I get a long with the 20 and 30 year olds at work. My interest tend to align with thiers (movies, politics, tech trends)) thanmost people my age. I associate with them both in and out of work.

"It's not discriminatory."

Maybe it's not necessarily discriminatory but almost certainly has been in instances. So really it can be either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com