Guess Who Doesn’t Fit in at Work
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I've also had it happen to me that I pass every technical interview, and then when I meet the team, we'll go for lunch and they'll order beer and I get an orange juice. Drinking comes up as a subject and since I don't drink alcohol my lack of craft beer knowledge somehow becomes the subject of my interview. Needless to say, I've always been rejected at these jobs. Another one is hobbies. I've a family and my commute is LONG, to the point that I don't even play PC games anymore. Hobbies come up, I have none, and I have no intention of lying to get the job. I've learned since that these are companies I don't want to work for. I've gotten along with everyone at every job I've had, so I'm not intimidated by these, but every one I've had has been utterly pointless.
The cultural fit thing can be important in that a negative nancy can seriously cause problems in a group, to the point of people leaving due to getting such a negative view of management/business over time from the constant negativity.
It's a hard thing because there are definitely people you don't want to hire due to 'fit', but it's so hard to get it even fairly right.
I consider a negative Nate an attitude issue not a cultural fit issue. If I picked up on a negative attitude during ht interview, the candidate probably won't be offered the position.
File it under Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people".
If there could ever be a treatise on psychopathy, that'd be it.
Although having said that, judging you so much on your "fit" is a pretty big red flag.
Everyone has hobbies just take the time to think about it and you will come up with something better than "none" which is not really exciting to hear and might send the wrong signal to the recruiter that you are not interested enough in the opening position.
The greater implication of my post, IMO, is that as I age I'm more experienced but less attractive to some employers solely based on my age. I already look about five years older than I am, so perhaps my career will be much more short-lived than I anticipate and I will have no say in it. That actually terrifies me.
I think it addresses the issue of not getting an offer because the existing team doesn't connect on as private/personal level.
sounds like he found the faults in your infrastructure, you should be thanking him
He mentioned having a family. That pretty much means he's not a robot.
"On May 11, 2014, Governor Mark Dayton signed the Women’s Economic Security Act (WESA), which amended the prohibitions against employment discrimination in the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Now, discrimination based on “familial status” in hiring, promotion, retention and other employment decisions is illegal in Minnesota." [1]
After the 80 hours a week spent at work, 56 hours a week spent sleeping (going to work while sleep deprived is like going to work drunk, so they do expect you to sleep!), 3.5 hours a week spent showering (and they do expect you to come to work clean, wonder why), 10 hours a week spent in commuting to work, 7 hours a week spent on feeding yourself (and they do expect you to eat so you can work (I can spend weeks without eating, but then I won't be productive)), 4 hours a week to buy the groceries, and 7 hours a week spent on the internet or TV, there remains NO time for any hobby.
So if they want hobbies, they will have to reduce drastically work time.
3.5 hours/week showering. Red flag #2. Even if you shower every single day, if you're spending 30 minutes in the shower each time you might as well call it a hobby. Unless you've got long luxurious hair, you should be able to get everything done in 10 minutes.
10 hours commuting, so 1 hour each way? #3 How much do you value your time? Clearly if you can't think of a hobby, not very much. If you did, you'd pay extra to not waste 2 hours every day wasted. But wait...why are you wasting that time? Can you read? Listen to audio books? Work on a side project? Even day dream and think? If you have to drive, can you switch from driving to motorcycling, and make that a hobby?
It sounds like you WANT to throw yourself into work, and spend all your energy and time into it as an excuse for lacking the ability to become a fully developed multi-faceted human being. And that is on you, not on your employer.
But again, this is valid in Australia and France. I know that people work too much in SF/US.
This is a lot easier to explain to a stranger who forming a judgement than "in the rare moments I'm not watching my kids, working, cleaning, or sleeping, I like to go shoot guns that I built."
I thought it was a negative because the hiring managers and recruiters were pressing for a well-rounded person with "hobbies" and interests outside of work. However, the team lead for Java developers considered the super-focus on coding a plus.
In retrospect, all of these different factors were just subjective and not a good way to evaluate candidates potential effectiveness on the job.
I don't know if you've ever actually said "I don't have hobbies" in an interview, but that could likely come off as negative. Your hobbies are your kids, or your house, or reading, or cooking, or watching TV, or whatever you do with your time at home. And all of those are at least something that might start a conversation, which is the whole point. Hell, even saying "I used to play PC games, here are the classics I liked" could be a conversation starter.
You're basically positing a definition of "hobby" that encompasses everything that isn't working. Caring for children is a basic life function and an obligation. It can be relaxing and pleasurable, but so can showers and eating--that doesn't make it a hobby. Hobbies are things you do optionally.
Contraceptives exist and work (for the most part), so caring for children is an opt-in activity. And even if it wasn't - it is totally possible to turn cooking or eating into a hobby by going beyond what's necessary to survive, and the same applies to caring for children.
As a late-twenties programmer without children, I'd have a lot of respect for anyone who mentions his/her kids as his/her hobby.
Or you could say "I love fixing up my old house. I'm a big fan of Bob Villa, and he inspired me to get a fixer-upper. Most recently I've been putting in a new hardwood floor. It's a lot of trips to Home Depot, and a lot of reading old Time-Life books..."
Which person seems like they will be easier to work with, and an efficient communicator?
Don't be afraid or insulted by them, OWN them. Spend time this weekend thinking about what exactly your hobbies are. You definitely have them, even if it's spending time cleaning up baby mess. Think about things that bring a smile to your face and can project to others what your passions are in life.
Never lie and it bothers me that some replies below mention that as an option. However, do MARKET yourself.
The reason these interviewers are mentioning craft-beer to you is because they're trying to get inside your head and see what makes you tick. Beer is an easy way in SF to connect with a lot of people. So yea, no one cares you don't like beer, and I know plenty of people don't drink at all. I promise that that's not why you're not getting an offer. :)
So instead of soft questions asking about hobbies, and excluding all the many examples of people families, why not talk about interesting on-the-job experiences? As one example. Interviewing well is a tough gig, but that's no excuse for continuing to do it poorly.
Maybe "value fit" should be used instead of cultural fit. Do your values align with the core values of the company.
The top NYTimes comment below illustrates some of the warts of a "cultural fit".
"Hiring managers who would never in a million years describe themselves or even privately consider themselves to be racist or sexist or ageist commonly use cultural-fit criteria to perpetrate racism, sexism, or agism in the workplace. I was recently in a meeting with two other managers to compare notes on a group of candidates whom we'd all just interviewed for a mid-level job. My top pick was a supremely well-qualified 45-year-old black woman who outscored all the other candidates on the skills test, was the only one to arrive on time for the interview, and was the only one who dressed professionally for the interview. It's a corporate job in Midtown. She was poised, amiable, and direct during my conversation with her, asked well-informed questions about the work and the company, and she was also the only candidate who sent a thank you letter after the interview. The other two hiring managers - both of whom, incidentally, were white women who were wearing Black Lives Matter pins - didn't think my top candidate "would be a good fit" or "feel comfortable." We hired a young white guy for the gig. He fits in the gang really well at happy hour, but his job performance is extremely poor. My two managerial colleagues have scheduled a meeting for next week to discuss what we're going to do about him. The good candidate is working for someone else now."
It takes a bold and courageous leader to admit mistakes in the corporate environment. Or a stupid one.
I don't think that is the question. I believe the point being made was that the free market punishes this sort of behavior. You don't rely on the company's officers learning their lesson, or following the spirit of some law - you rely on market forces killing the company that passes over superior candidates.
Beyond lip service, most people are more concerned with their own dept or team vs the entire company.
The reality is "cultural fit" should never be used to make decisions. It is never right, either as a predictor of performance or ethically. Companies and interviewers already have an incredibly difficult time figuring out ways in which to judge qualifications, even when standard tests and procedures are available. To add in this nonsensical idea of "cultural fit," something that can't be measured, quantified, qualified, or identified, and to make that a selection criteria for applicants not only shirks the duty to hire the most qualified, but gives the company and interviewers an unchallengeable way to reject applicants, an option that otherwise would--and should--be illegal.
tldr: Cultural fit is discrimination, it cannot predict job performance or any otherwise meaningful information related to a candidate's skills and abilities, and should be illegal as its only use is to deny qualified applicants jobs they qualify for.
Source?
Even if what you say could be true, is it a good thing to send our kids to institutions of learning so that they can become arse-licking sycophants? Is that even a conscious decision in parenting?
I'd argue that going to a so-called "elite" institution is more akin to learning a language by immersion.
So you must possess the talent of Tom Ripley?
I recall one of my first Bosses who went to the same public school as one of Pres Obamas roommates at Harvard said the school sports are Rugger, Rowing and Drinking Beer
What most of these articles fail to mention is that there are three aspects to the traditional socioeconomic diversity narrative: low income, race/ethnicity, and familial educational achievement. As an Asian American whose parents both had PhDs, I've been in the unique position of having only one of the three factors affecting me.
If you have a crappy attitude I can't do anything to help you there.
If you have the aptitude and your attitude is positive, can-do, willing to learn, we can teach you anything you need to know or you can learn it on the job.
I too worry that "Cultural Fit" is becoming the new "don't like them" excuse of the day. I try hard to hire people who think about problems differently than myself or other members of my team. My hope is to get as many angles as possible to see problems from so we together as a team can find solutions that might not have been obvious if each of us has a homogeneous view driven by some bogus "cultural fit".
What I know about my life is I was born with almost none of the skills I leverage every day. From the ability to walk and talk, I've had to learn it all. I feel focusing too much on fit and skills is like judging a baby on how cute it is. Basically useless.
Worse, people like Peter Thiel and Max Levchin celebrate this and encourage other startups not to hire women and not to hire men who are even slightly different than themselves. These are influential people and they're purposefully using their influence to make the world a dramatically worse place. You might think I'm exaggerating, but I'm actually understating the amount of discrimination that they encourage.
Good cultural fit is about being able to perform on the team. But most SV cultural fit is about being able to party with the team. It's a different thing.
The good news for founders who aren't bigoted assholes is that this means there's less competition for diverse talent, and if you can help those folks know that they'll feel welcome in your office, they'll be knocking at your door.
At the end of the day the most important decision a company can make is about hiring.
The second is about firing.
Do the math, which one has a better ROI?
At the company I work for, we value creativity, independence and taking ownership and responsibility of one's work. It sounds generic but it's not - people who like structured workplaces and process, just wither and don't succeed. So we try to assess that in interviews, and we took the time actually define what are our values (it goes way beyond this example).
Over time we became better at this, and it actually contributed more heterogeneous hires. Since you don't have to assess people on your personal chemistry and how much they're like you personally - you have better tools do do that. This approach opened the door to people who fit with the work culture, even though they're not similar to the core "social DNA" of the team, and that's just fine, it works well for everyone.
BTW when we sat down and defined it, we tried conveying this to the whole team because not everyone was aligned with those values. One or two people actually came forward after that in private, and said something like "I get what you want from the team, I don't think I can find myself in this culture, and I think it's better for both sides that I leave". I have huge respect for that.
Whether they prefer to have large meetings vs one-on-ones is the kind of thing you want to know, but it's probably not a great idea to prioritize that over actual ability.
Do we observe discrepancies between company performance that are correlated with diversity? They say this is observable at the team level in controlled studies, but at the macro level do we see it?
Put another way, if diversity was a strong influence on success, why do elite institutions in banking and tech not appear to exhibit much of it?
Assessing for ability is extremely difficult - in the case of programming positions, technical interview processes either suffer from a large number of false negatives (e.g. the "Google filter") or a large number of false positives (e.g. "this person doesn't know how to write a for loop; how did they get hired?").
Per the article, most interviewers interpret "cultural fit" as "personal fit" - how well do you like the interviewee? The example heuristics (going out for a beer with the candidate, spending a snowy night in an airport together, etc) have very little to do with company culture and very much to do with answering the question: "Do I like this person?".
Any 4 year old can tell when they like somebody. It's one of the easiest things in the world for a human being to assess.
Technical ability, on the other hand, is one of the hardest things in the world for human beings to asses, at least in the context of an interview. Assessing for "cultural fit" - which on the face of it makes perfect sense as a hiring metric - devolves into a way to avoid doing something difficult (assess technical ability) by doing something easy (assess personal affinity).
The technical barriers for these jobs are very small, but as corporations have a self-reinforcing cronyist culture, "acting and being part of the wolves" is the most important thing.
Not only will qualified people not get a chance, but many sectors end up collapsing or getting stuck. For example, for a decent "banker", it wouldnt be hard to predict events in 07-09.
Further, they had showed me that my bonus was going to be over $27K one three separate occasions, then they let me go before having to pay me the bonus because I had to be actually employed there to receive my share of the money earned from me doing 100% of the work.
People should not be able to be fired for "not being a good fit" they should have concrete documented issues on which to fire someone.
"Crucially, though, for these gatekeepers, fit was not about a match with organizational values. It was about personal fit."
For all of you defending hiring on fit, which fit are you thinking about?
As a Myers-Briggs "intuitive", maybe I "fit" with people having a similar outlook and values, while "sensory" folks fit with people who've had similar experiences and hobbies. I wonder if similarities in this dimension dominates the other MBTI dimensions in accounting for fit (e.g. introversion/extroversion, thinking/feeling, perceiving/judging).
Any research on this? Seems like a worthwhile question.
I need people with different ideas, different experience; people who will approach the problems in a different way, fill in the blind spots and vulnerabilities the current team has.
There's a trade-off to be made, sure, but professional adults can work together with people that are not the same as them, and a team composed of people who think differently and have different approaches and different experience is far more advantageous than a team of people who all think and work in the same way.
Desktop applications experience vs. embedded software experience
(I say "vs"; I don't mean they're opposed, but that someone with a lot of experience in one of those will think about things in a different way to someone with experience in the other; it's a spectrum along such a dimension).
Pure software experience vs. designer/seller of hardware+software
Computer Science degree vs. other technical degree (Maths, Physics, Engineering)
Technical degree vs. arts degree
Degree vs. on-the-job/self-taught
Experience in big megacorps vs. experience in small companies
Experience in established companies vs. experience in new businesses or startups
Experienced vs. inexperienced (this one is more broadly "life " experience, and it could roughly translate to older vs. younger, but it's not quite that simple)
Consumer apps experience vs. business-to-business
Mobile devices experience vs. supercomputer number-crunching
And so on. More, I expect.
So, for example, if I had a team of Computer Science graduates, I might wonder if they're all thinking about problems through the lens of their classes on algorithms and data-structures and so forth, and maybe a mathematician would think about these same problems in a different way.
If I had a team with a lot of people from global defence industry megacorps used to spending a decade on a project and ensuring that all reqts are solid up front, I might think that someone from a startup might bring a different approach to the software life-cycle (and, of course, vice-versa).
Adding another person to a team who thinks the same just gives me more of the same. If I want to make fewer mistakes and have more novel ideas, I need to fill in gaps. Not every gap, and there's always a balance, but a professional adult can work effectively with people who are not the same as them. I'm not hiring in the hopes of creating a group of people who really like each other.
All I can do now is wait until they're old enough to learn a thing or two about computers if they are so inclined...
At previous startup we had guys from: Germany, Russia, US, Romania, Brasil, Ukraine, Philippines.
Our "cultural fit" was just about: Be a Hacker (innovative, open-minded).
Why did you put "cultural fit" in quotes? Your criterion is just as poorly defined as everyone else's "cultural fit" criteria and, just like theirs, acts as a way to simply exclude people because they're not like you.
He's saying they are just using skill as a criterion.
It was in its infancy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(programmer_subculture) ) and it is now. Part of it's current culture is the pretence that it's all about skill; it's not. The completely lacking in skill won't get recognised as part of it, but it's attitude and style that buys admission to that club.
These days, software places that are looking for "hackers" generally mean they're looking for inexperienced youngsters who have dabbled in a handful of currently trending web frameworks, but have "Agile" written on the crumpled t-shirt they will wear to the interview. The world's finest software engineer could turn up but because that person has decades of experience, plans their software before they write it, children in college and a liking for going home at five, the world's finest software engineer will be rejected on grounds of "culture fit". HN is heaving with people who have immersion baptised themselves in this particular kool-aid.
I've got a copy of Levy's "Hackers" on my desk, printed in 1984. The first chapter opens in the late fifties (i.e. almost sixty years ago) in the MIT model railway club.
"Hackers" are (or at least, were) people who solved problems in a particular way. A good hack involved some clever dodge around a limitation, or some new creative technical thinking to achieve a task. In code terms, someone might find a way round a memory limitation by reusing something in a non-standard way, or perhaps someone might hide some extra calculation in the fly-back time of a CRT monitor. Hacks show a knowledge and understanding beyond the standard methods, a knowledge and understanding often gathered through exploring deeply and chasing personal itches; creativity based on a more thorough understanding than just knowing the syntax. The skill good hackers tended to have was just a base knowledge that allowed their creativity to fly; sometimes someone would churn out a creative, non-standard solution purely because they didn't have the skill needed, and didn't know the elegant standard method.
A "person who can code" is not a hacker (under the traditional definition, at least). That's simply a person who can code. Some of the finest programmers are not hackers. Some of the finest hackers are not outstanding programmers. Yes, there's a broad correlation; good hackers tend to be good programmers (although certainly not the other way around), but the two terms are by no means synonymous.
If you've not read Levy's "Hackers", it's a good read.
"Except in some relatively minor respects such as slang vocabulary, hackers don't get to be the way they are by imitating each other. Rather, it seems to be the case that the combination of personality traits that makes a hacker so conditions one's outlook on life that one tends to end up being like other hackers whether one wants to or not (much as bizarrely detailed similarities in behavior and preferences are found in genetic twins raised separately)."
If what you seek is open-mindedness to new ways of thinking and new ways of doing things, a positive attitude to learning, a desire to explore the software and hardware beyond the level purely necessary to meet the requirements, then say all these things so people know what you mean (and so that you do get applications from people with two decades of experience applying all these values to their life - some of those applicants can blow you away, if you can look past the smart suit; twenty years as a working adult with an attitude of never-ending learning can create some seriously skilled people).
You started your definition with "For me"; clearly, you already know that this is your definition. I bet there are people you work with who actually have a different definition but because you all use the same word, you don't realise it (cf. the common political phrases "our common values" and "hard-working families" - everyone has a personal definition of this that they simply project onto the phrase).
I understand how ingrained the “guys” habit might be for
some of you. It was for me. After several months of
concerted, conscious effort, I still slip and say it on oc-
casion.
Either way, that's no excuse to stop thinking about things.
For example, where I'm from (West Ireland), the term "Lads" is often used for everyone regardless of gender. One might hear a lady say she's "Going out with the lads" when describing a night out, with even a mostly female group of companions.
Basically, we should try to not use language which excludes others, but in some cases the person is actually using gender-neutral language from their culture and does not intend to exclude anyone.
I think "culture fit" is generally opportunity for both sides to determine if their brands of humor are compatible.
If you cannot laugh with your coworkers, why work there?
A large part of the "human-centric" modality of web design, for instance, involves writing less code and solving human needs. If you do not have hobbies, etc., why participate in what is inherently a social activity? You are writing code for humans, and humans are likely those wherein you will craft and discover solutions.
I also don't remember questions about anything outside of work during the interview either.
https://medium.com/culture-club/a-black-man-walks-into-silic...