Comment by asolove | Hacker News Reader

Comment by asolove | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I agree that some companies use "culture fit" as an excuse to eliminate diversity. But that doesn't mean that "culture fit" isn't a real thing when not abused in this way.

I have found "culture fit" to often mean problems with adjusting to the process and management structure of an organization.

I have worked with folks from corporate environments who never adjusted to having to find their own work and set their own goals in the startup world. And I have worked (briefly) at companies where I liked the people and the work but could not be productive or happy with the kind of micro-management I was expected to put up with.

That's why it's valuable to interview for "culture" (both when hiring and being hired). You need to talk out loud about expectations of how we work together and how we decide what to do. Have this conversation enough times, both in interviews and just chatting with peers, and you'll see things you agree with, things you disagree with but don't mind, and things that are absolute warning signs of toxic environments.

I disagree with your definition. If you can't get your work done because you need micromanagement then it is simply a case of not doing your job, and there is no value bringing "culture" into the discussion. The term "cultural fit" is a contrast to competency and productivity, not a subsection.

Any business that's sole focus is not accomplishing their mission is dysfunctional. "Cultural Fit" is always toxic - unfairly discriminatory in hiring and non productive in practice.

> "Cultural Fit" is always toxic

You clearly never had to put up with The Angry Guy.

Cultural fit, I agree, it's a catchall term that covers everything from blatant aesthetic discrimination to merciful removal of toxic characters.

In my experience, with rare exceptions, "toxic characters" is a kind of dogwhistle for "that guy is not in our clique." It's born of the kind of immaturity and never-left-high-school mentality I've come to associate with lingerers especially at large organizations.

"The Angry Guy" in these cases is often "angry" only by projection, or frankly with cause.

I have been the "toxic character." In my experience the term means "allergic to bullshit."

I've been Angry Gal too, but only for about two weeks - then I recognised the poor 'cultural fit' that I was being (my bad, I should have never taken the job in the first place) and I left for greener and more congenial pastures.

The conditions of the market may not allow such radical choices in every single case; but I don't have a problem with acknowledging that despite being right in my anger towards the bullshit I was seeing, I was actually being disruptive and damaging to that particular (horrid) environment. Not everyone is suited to every company - it seems a very basic truth to me.

I think we're in agreement mainly, but I wouldn't self-describe as being "disruptive and damaging" were I you. Perhaps just "disruptive," but such an environment can't be "damaged" any more than it already is, in my opinion.

I know Angry guy! He sits next to Chatty Kathy! No one likes a Chatty Kathy.

No, you're being unreasonable. If someone has come from a big company where getting something done involves submitting a form in triplicate and waiting, and you drop them into an environment where they've got to hustle to get anything from anyone else in the company, they'll be lost. Similarly if you took someone from a startup and dropped them into a huge organisation, they would be equally nonproductive.

True story, a few companies ago I worked at a medium sized place where we had people employed full time to allocate storage and IP addresses. Getting them to actually do it tho' was like getting blood from a stone. Unless one of them owed you a favour, you would literally have to stand over them and not let them go until they did their damn jobs. That was a highly dysfunctional company. The next place, the people in those jobs practically fell over themselves to help, they were like a breath of fresh air. As a consumer of these services, I'd have alienated myself immediately if I hadn't taken the time to adapt to the culture. And if I'd been going the other way, well I'd have got nothing accomplished, expecting people to actually want to do jobs they're bloody paid for. AArgh.

Neither of them is "wrong" and both of them can adapt - but someone's got to take them aside and explain the lay of the land, not just leave them to flounder.

I work at a big company, where on paper everything needs to be done in triplicate. That said, you _have_ to hustle, because 'getting stuff done' involves lots of interpersonal relationships and leveraging those relationships to actually get anything done - if you just leave it to process, you'd wait forever. Beyond that, you often need to know who to ask to find the entry point to the process, as with most companies there is very little up to date documentation about anything useful.

Isn't it just as likely that they were unhappy in the previous environment and would thrive in a more self-motivated position? I guess we will never know because you have already determined with one question exactly how the situation will play out.

People are complex. Groups of people, magnitudes more so. I have seen an interview end with unanimous positive assessment and after being hired the subject fail spectacularly. I have also seen candidates barely squeak through the hiring process become star players. Anyone who believes that they can predict the outcome of personalities from a job interview is a great and pompous fool.

Do you see what you did there? You defined "culture fit" as a codeword for a lack of management and process!

Hmm, I don't see that at all. Every company has a culture, a way of making decisions, and a way things get done. We're talking about how those happen.

That can include things like "most people do GTD", "most communication is asynchronous" and "we're all accountable." Or it can include PRDs, a specific agile method, or constant off-sites about improving efficiency. In many places, it isn't thought about, so they think they have no process or management, when they do, and it's just a secret culture or a back-door process.

The reason to talk about "culture" is to have these discussions to hear what people take for granted, and which things they groan about. I've worked at places where "obviously" we need an annual plan and at places where "obviously" we can have no idea when things are shipping and shouldn't even try to. That's why you have to talk about it in depth: one person's "we have no process" is another person's convoluted, opaque process.

Micromanagement is not management. "Figure out your own tasks" is not management. Something "most people" do is not cultural. "Constant" off-sites? I don't even know where to put that one.

My point is that while these may be sold as process and management, these concepts are more values than states, and many of the examples you've used illustrate a lack (or low values) of presence.

one person's "we have no process" is another person's convoluted, opaque process.

And they'd both be right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com