Whenever I hear that someone has been fired due to culture fit issues, when I really try to question the motivations behind it, it almost always comes down to a politically correct version of "we didn't like hanging out with him/her". It is such BS.
A bit of team members competitiveness is ok, and perhaps good. But when it ends up divulging into fighting, back stabbing and lack of communication, the atmosphere turns toxic, and it hampers the whole team. Also, when you have engineers trying to user work time to play with their favorite framework/tool/whatever else that might not actually help other team members to get their stuff done. (usually a trait of more junior devs). But this is easily fixable. People issue are harder to fix.
Few things to do:
1. Set up straight rules, and expectations for the people that are having problem fitting in.
2. Allow them to express their point of view, but also let them know that what the team expects of them. Try to see if you can accommodate their requests. Often they are ways/desires to do something in a different way, which might not be compatible with company's way of doing things. Sometimes you can learn from it, sometimes the employee's request and point of view are unrealistic or just don't fit with the company's goal.
3. Move them to a different team or setting, and see if they get along/fit better with different team dynamics.
4. Firing them is a last resort only, if nothing else works. If you let go somebody too quickly it sends a bad message to the rest of the team as well (the company looks too cut-throat). Also letting people not getting along well for too long hampers the productivity of everybody else.
However I do think the phrase is valid. Culture fit encompasses all of the intangibles outside of skill and experience. Team cohesion is a very real concept and not everyone works harmoniously together. Especially in startups and small companies, one overly "negative" influence (however that's defined for your particular team) can bring down morale and productivity across the board.
Startups run on morale. This is a pretty important feature of a startup employee. Even if that's what "culture fit" means that doesn't invalidate it as a reason to fire.
For instance, somebody who is only productive in absolute silence and prefers working from 6am to 2pm, will have a very difficult time working with somebody who needs to listen to heavy metal at full blast and likes working from 1pm to 9pm.
Especially if they have to work on the same team and need to closely collaborate to get their work done.
We're social creatures. When it comes to an interaction between people, do not underestimate the social angle. If it's not working on that level it's going to be hard to make it work in other ways, too.
The truth is, those people had given up and became toxic to everyone around them. It was time that they move on.
Anyhow, whenever I hear the defense of "professionalism" I become fairly suspicious of the circumstances.
The point I am trying to make is that if someone says "he/she is capable and behaves professionally, but the culture fit is just not there", that's when I become fairly suspicious of the circumstances.
I personally would never work somewhere that I was forced to listen to other people's music.
It will just make the hiring process more strict. I know France has these sorts of rules in place and many companies didn't want to hire anyone without experience because it was very difficult to fire someone once you hired them.
Have better management processes so you can solve problems of "cultural fit" rather than just firing people.
It's as if the hiring process is really two-fold: first, is the formal interviewing process - during which your suitability for the role is determined - and second is pledging the greek-letter organization/start-up - during which your suitability for hanging-out is determined.
For example, at Google we place a big emphasis on "Culture fit" during our hiring process, but we have a very diverse workforce. My team and I share few common interests outside of work, but we're all able to get together in a room, communicate effectively, and generally enjoy each other's company.
In the past, I have worked with people that I can't wait to get away from. With these people it was a really challenge to get good work done, because to work effectively requires good communication. It's a lot easier to communicate if you actually enjoy talking to the person.
None of this has anything to do with musical taste, hobbies, or drinking habits. It's to do with attitude, courtesy, patience, and other character traits. Each workplace is different and different kinds of people will thrive or fail depending on whether they fit the culture of that workplace.
Like I said in another comment making a similar point, I completely agree. It feels like the industry has been hijacked by people who were actively ejected from all cliques in high school, and now they create their own cliques around them and eject people arbitrarily because "they are not like us".
It’s also true that the wrong person can disrupt a team that was previously running smoothly. So, yes, “we didn’t like hanging out with her/him” is a perfectly legitimate reason to separate someone from a team.
> To paraphrase Hanns Johst...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Johst#Role_in_Nazi_German...
The concept that we should shoot those who hold ideas we don't agree with rather than engage in debate is exactly how we end up with horrible totalitarian regimes.
And your form of argument is ad-hominem. Not exactly the moral high ground.
You're actually accusing me of making an ad hominem attack, when in fact I'm simply trying to point out that he's opening himself up to such attacks by using the quote he's using. Clearly you must agree that he's inviting such attacks, as you seem to be jumping to his defense even before such an attack has taken place.
That said, you have every right to write what you want to.
Best of luck.
You (seemingly) are an example of everything you argue against, tho. Shoot the messenger is not a strong or attractive argument. Neither is failing to (properly) understand a literary reference, have a sense of irony, history, humor, etc...
Lighten up and argue your point, properly. With trasnparency, not FUD and oblique credibility attacks. This is also a good time to think about whether you are a cultural fit with HN.[1]
__________
[1] <sarcasm tag> Be Glad I'm not your boss. Oh, wait, that would be an asshole comment. OK folks. Carry on. NOthing to see here.