Been meaning to post this one for a while now.
Frankly, I am generally disgusted by the whole idea of “culture” in hiring and workplaces. I think [in the US] we have gotten too far away from understanding/acknowledging why people really work and why people really come to work and what most people really want from their jobs at the end of the day (especially since–let’s face it–the idea of “culture” in the workplace is really more about and for the benefit of the employer). And it has become a huge no-no to point out these ridiculously obvious realities and accept them for what they are without being viewed negatively or even having your job–or ability to get a job–threatened.
Still, when it all is said and done, you can do whatever you want and have whatever “culture” and “relationships” you want–no one is showing up to work and no one is doing anything for your company if you stop paying them. So, requiring a “cultural fit” or whatever and throwing that on top of the already-lengthy list of job requirements and hiring requirements just makes everything that much harder–for the person hiring and the leaders in a company and the employees and job candidates–when it still is, always was and always will be really and truly about a paycheck.
So, I would love for companies and employers to stop kidding themselves.
All of that said…if you’re going to talk about basing a work culture on mostly professionalism, innovation and/or diversity (I guess if we’re going to come up with acronyms, then I’d call my “cultural” values PID and wouldn’t want to just pay lip service to them like most companies do)…then I can get on board. They’re pretty easy values to which to fit candidates, actually, in my opinion, and they aren’t as taxing, problematic, alienating and/or unrealistic as the values the average company with a cultural ideal has. Which is probably why I struggle to tolerate any other types of cultural workplace beliefs.
This post discusses the benefits of, and the connection between, diversity and innovation in organizations.
Some gems:
…most hiring processes focus on “cultural fit” and lead to the opposite of diversity. Why? Because when we hire based on how well someone will fit in today, we tend to choose people similar to those already around us.
I try to choose candidates who could make a positive contribution to the future of our culture, even if they don’t feel like today’s mainstream employee. I don’t optimize for fit with our existing culture, because over time that will lead to uniformity and irrelevancy. Instead, I try to envision a future where this person’s unique point of view has shifted how we work and what we value.
…even more importantly, hiring for cultural contribution forces managers to think critically about their existing culture: What’s lacking? Where do we want to go? Acknowledging that our culture needn’t be static helps us have serious conversations about what we want and how the world works. Doing so helps us develop a confident awareness of what makes our culture thrive.
I also love this comment from Koney Hoi, who has an impressive background as a leader:
Cultural fit is just a convenient excuse to reject someone. Michael Jordan did not get along with his teammates but they won 6 championships together. Why? Agree to disagree and march together towards a common goal.
Hiring: It’s About Cultural Contribution, Not Cultural Fit
