Hacker News Reader

Comment by protonfish | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

> "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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com